A. The Defendant: (a) visited Smarket operated by the victim E; (b) during the dispute between D and Sifashing, flaps were dumped by the victim E; and (c) the Defendant did not interfere with the victim E’s Schlage business by avoiding disturbance.

In addition, the victim F was under the influence of alcohol in the above process, and the defendant did not blick the victim F when the defendant was f.

B. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that, with respect to the punishment of the lower court (no. 10 months of imprisonment), the Defendant is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor asserts that it is too unfasible and unfair.

2. The following circumstances, i.e., victims E, F, and at the scene recognized by the lower court based on evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

D At the investigation stage, the defendant was at the time of suffering from the victim F while disputing the case cost to D, and the defendant was at the time of suffering from the victim E with the difficulty of interfering with the victim E's supermarket business.

In light of the fact that specific and consistent statement, D, victim E, and F are the business owner of a store visiting or visiting by the defendant, etc., the victims and D can be sufficiently recognized as having interfered with the duties of the victim E and having inflicted an injury on the victim F.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

3. The Defendant appears to have recognized and opposed to the crime of assault and bodily injury to the victim I as to the illegal argument of sentencing.

The victim E did not want to be punished by the defendant, and the defendant agreed with the victim I who suffered the injury in the first instance.

On the other hand, the defendant assaulted victims, injured them, or obstructed their business for minor reasons, and in light of the motive, circumstance, contents, etc. of the crime.