All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Considering the fact that the Defendant (unfairly unfair) suffered from his wrong and reflects the Defendant’s mistake, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime by contingency under the influence of alcohol at the time, and that the victim D, I, and J do not want to be punished against the Defendant, the sentence of the lower court (one year of suspended sentence in April of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court erred in determining the credibility of the victim’s statement, despite the credibility of the victim’s investigative agency’s statement, which stated that “The Defendant intentionally assaulted the victim’s interest and thereby sustained injury,” in view of the following: (a) the reversal of the statement by the victim I in the original trial by the victim of mistake of facts (in relation to the injury) would have affected the circumstance where the victim suffered from the Defendant’s damage; and (b) the Defendant could have been unable to bring an injury requiring two-time medical treatment if the Defendant’s damage was caused by the flood.”

B. The sentence of the lower court is too unfasible and unfair in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, under the influence of unfair sentencing, committed abusive assault to the police officers who called out for the disturbance under the influence of unfair sentencing; (b) the victim G, a police officer, still wanting to punish the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant’s sentence is too unfasible.

2. Determination

가. 사실오인 주장에 관한 판단 ⑴ 이 사건 상해 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2013. 7. 19. 04:00경 서울 강남구 C 지하 1층에 있는 D 운영의 'E주점'에서, 칵테일을 주문하여 마신 후 아무런 이유 없이 소란을 피우던 중, 그곳 종업원인 피해자 I(남, 32세)으로부터 “나가 달라”는 말을 듣자 철제의자를 피해자를 향해 밀어 넘어뜨려 피해자의 오른쪽 무릎 부위에 부딪히게 함으로써 피해자에게 약 14일간의 치료를 요하는 우측 대퇴부 타박상 등을 가하였다.

The judgment of the court below on Doz. 1