The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

There was no fact that the defendant, as stated in the charge of mistake of facts, assaulted the victims or assaulted them, and the statements of the victims were distorted.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below which found all the charges of this case guilty.

The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

Judgment

A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the defendant's oral statement of the witness of the court below, the defendant's interrogation protocol of the defendant, the prosecutor's examination record of the defendant, the records of harm, etc., which contain the statement that the defendant acknowledged that there was a fact, etc., regardless of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts, although the defendant is disputing the crime, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant abused the victims as stated in the facts charged, and that the defendant threatened the victim D by taking advantage of the fluor, fluoring, and threatening the victim on February 12, 2015.

As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the Defendant appears to have taken an attitude that the victims seem to have been born, and the victims did not agree with the victims, and the victims want to punish the victims, and the crime committed several times against the neighboring victims, and the crime committed a dangerous article, is not good.

On the other hand, there is no criminal conviction except for a fine once, the fact that the defendant has committed a crime with an interesting problem with noise noise seems to have been committed contingently, and the fact that the damage caused by assault is not severe, and the fact that the defendant has already been living under detention for not less than four months in this case is favorable to the defendant.