The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are only true that an empty plastic disease was taken once due to the lusitation of facts, and there is no fact that the victims received favorable cups as stated in the facts charged. Even if it is recognized that the fact of having taken family cups, the injury suffered by the victims does not constitute the injury under the crime of injury.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 240 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the contents of the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence duly examined in the court of first instance, if there are special circumstances to deem that the judgment of the court of first instance on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the court of first instance was clearly erroneous or, in light of the contents of the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence evidence duly examined in the court of first instance, it is highly unfair to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the court of first instance until the closing of argument in the court of first instance, the appellate court did not reverse the judgment of the court of first instance on the sole ground that the first instance on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the court of first instance differs from the judgment of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006; 2007Do2020, May 11, 2007; 2009Do414, Feb. 29, 209).