All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and assault by the victim E on March 28, 2018, the Defendant did not go beyond the floor by putting the victim E’s shoulder on his/her hands and breaking the bridge. ② With respect to interference with the business on April 6, 2018, the Defendant did not have avoided an disturbance between about 30 minutes in D operated by the victim C. ③ In relation to assault by the victim on April 11, 2018, the Defendant committed assault by the victim, although he/she pushed the victim C, it did not go beyond C, and the Defendant’s act was a justifiable act that does not go against social norms. ④ As to the assault by the victim on May 31, 2018, the Defendant’s act of harming the victim C constitutes an act of assaulting the victim, but it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unjust sentencing, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the Defendant’s act constitutes an act of unlawful sentencing.

B. The above sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On March 28, 2018, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, and determined that the Defendant inflicted injury on the Victim E on March 28, 2018, obstructed the Victim C’s Hop operations on April 6, 2018, and obstructed the Victim C’s Hop operations on April 11, 2018 and assaulted the Victim C on May 31, 2018.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment by closely comparing the records of this case, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Furthermore, Defendant’s assertion of the above misapprehension of legal principles is that the victim C is pushed ahead or pushed down on April 11, 2018 and May 31, 2018.