The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant claiming a misunderstanding of facts is only limited to three times the victim F's her son, and did not commit an injury by assaulting the said victim with the iron manufacturer or spawn, as in the facts charged in this case, and there is no fact that the Defendant interfered with the restaurant business by impairing the beer's disease at the restaurant operated by the victim D, such as destroying the beer's disease.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant interfered with the restaurant business by assaulting the victim F with the steel manufacturer and the main ward as stated in the instant facts charged, and destroying the beer’s disease or gathering the chairs at the restaurant operated by the victim D.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

1) The Defendant acknowledged all the facts charged on the date of the first instance trial of the lower court. 2) The victims stated in the investigative agency and the trial court that “the Defendant assaulted the Victim F with the steel product and the main illness as indicated in the instant facts charged, such as assaulting the Victim F with the steel product and scambling the beer or scambling the beer, etc. at the restaurant operated by the victim D,” and the contents of the statement are somewhat different in terms of three detailed matters, such as the situation at the time of assault, but there is a concrete and consistent credibility in the core part.

3) At the time H also observed the situation, in the investigative agency and the court of the trial, ex officio made a statement that corresponds to the victim’s above statement. 4) The victim’s injury part and degree stated in the victim F’s injury diagnosis document are victims.