Although the Defendant did not assault the victim D or F in the manner as provided in paragraph (1) of the crime at the time of original judgment (the part concerning the crime Nos. 1 and 4 at the time of original judgment) in the judgment of the court below, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

The crime No. 4 (Assault for Re-Purpose) of the judgment of the court below was committed on the H District, and the defendant was released on the following day due to the criminal facts like the above paragraph, and the re-exploitation of the above E entertainment tavern is merely an act of finding the defendant's resident registration certificate and mobile phone at the place, and it was not an assault by finding victims for the purpose of providing an investigation proviso or retaliation against the defendant's criminal investigation in relation to his criminal case. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime No. 4 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, which affected

Mental and physical disorder (the crime of No. 1, 2, and 3 at the time of the original adjudication) was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing a crime under paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the crime (the crime of No. 1: violence, 2: the damage of property, and 3: the damage of the first public property).

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The first crime (Assault part) defendant at the time of the original adjudication on mistake of facts has not accepted any argument similar to the above grounds for appeal in the original adjudication.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant assaulted the victim D and F in the manner described in paragraph (1) of the crime at the time of the original judgment is justified.

At the time of the original adjudication, the Defendant asserted that this part of the instant appeal was similar to that of the above grounds for appeal, but not accepted.

Likewise, the court below held.