Nevertheless, since the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On February 27, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 21:30 on February 27, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (b) at the Emnasium operated by the Victim D, the Defendant: (c) took singing together with one-way F, G, and H; (d) followed by the victim D (50 years of age) on the ground that the period of singing singing-out does not work properly; and (e) took a telephone phone with the victim’s hand, and (e) took up two-thirds of the victim’s head on the part of the victim D; and (e) took the victim’s hand to prevent the victim from taking approximately four (4) weeks of the injury to the victim’s head; and (e) took the victim’s head on one-time basis of three-three (3) weeks of the victim’s injury to the son’s external trauma in need of four (4) weeks of the injury to the victim D; and (e) took the victim’s her employees into consideration one-time three (3) week.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in the lower judgment.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's judgment and the court below's evidence duly adopted and examined: ① The victim D, from investigative agencies to the court of the court below, stated to the effect that "the defendant took his hand and her hand to prevent him from taking advantage of his hand" (Evidence No. 83, No. 37 of the record of the court below), and ② The victim I also stated in the investigative agencies and the court of the court below that "the defendant was the victim D with the victim's hand, and the victim D was the victim's hand to prevent it."