All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not cause injury to the victim on June 11, 2016. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the Defendant’s second trial on August 9, 2016). The allegation of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles was withdrawn.

(2) 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court and the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable, since it is recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged.

(1) The statements made by a victim that correspond to the facts charged are consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, are consistent with the statements by witnesses, and there are no circumstances to suspect credibility.

Although the Defendant asserted that the witness F was not present at the time, the Defendant did not witness the case, the Defendant stated to the effect that he was F at the police site (Evidence No. 124 pages). The lower court also presented a defense counsel’s opinion to the effect that F continued to appear at the scene through a defense counsel (No. 43 pages of the trial record). The Defendant started to make the testimony unfavorable to the Defendant by attending as a witness and thereafter, the testimony was defective.

(2) On the day of the instant case, the victim was diagnosed as an official address in which the details of the testimony and oral lectures are open, etc. (Evidence No. 11 pages) and a photograph of damage was taken by the victim to the investigative agency.