A. The defendant did not assault the victims as stated in each criminal facts in the judgment of the court below.

The statements of the victims are inconsistent and contradictory, and the records which recorded the situation from the time when the defendant visited the house of D to the time when he leaves the house of D have no contents or circumstances that can be seen as the face of D when the defendant leaves the house of D, the statements of the victims have no credibility.

B. The act mentioned in Paragraph (2) of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below is a passive resistance to E’s assault, and constitutes self-defense.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below also asserted that the defendant's assertion of mistake of fact is identical to the above assertion of mistake of fact, and the court below acknowledged the credibility of the victim D and E after directly examining the victim D and E, and rejected all the charges of the defendant and found the defendant guilty.

In accordance with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the victim D stated to the effect that the defendant was able to find his house and drink his house until the investigation agency and the court of the court of the court below, and that the defendant was able to see the defendant in the past." The defendant was able to see that he was able to see the situation at the time of the damage and the method of violence and the part of the damage, and that the statement about the essential part, such as the part of the victim's body, such as the victim's assault, was specific and consistent, and that the victim E was able to see that the defendant was able to see the defendant's vessel on the side of D and her house until the court of the court of the court below.