1. All the judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) On the criminal facts No. 1 and No. 3 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant habitually did not assault the victim D or F, and despite the fact that the victim H was threatened, the court below accepted each part of the facts charged and convicted the defendant. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Although the defendant submitted a false complaint to an investigative agency for the purpose of having the F, D, or H punished criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below accepted each of the facts charged, and found the defendant guilty. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the judgment of the court below against the defendant was tried and sentenced separately, and the defendant filed each appeal against the above judgment of the court below against the above 1 and 2, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings against the above two appeals. Each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below in the first and second cases against the defendant in relation to concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below against the defendant cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even though there are such reasons for the above ex officio reversal.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the argument on the charge No. 1 and No. 3 as stated in the first instance judgment regarding the mistake of facts.