The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) was that the Defendant did not assault the victims at the time and place of the ruling, and only told the assault and disturbance in B.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized that the defendant committed assault against the victims jointly with B, which constitutes an illegality of misunderstanding of facts.

2. The judgment of the court below also made the same assertion, and the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant used the victim F, H, and G jointly with B, by explaining detailed reasons as stated in the judgment below's crime / [the crime of the court below].

A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and the defendant applied for witness B and F at the court of original instance, but all of them were examined as witness at the court of original instance, and they did not adopt it as inappropriate to re-examine the witness at the court of original instance in light of the purport of Article 156-5(2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, and the appellate court did not adopt it, despite the absence of any objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, in order to re-examine the court of first instance after an ex post facto determination, there should be reasonable circumstances to deem that the first instance court's determination was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the fact-finding is clearly unreasonable due to violation of logical and empirical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). In light of various circumstances such as this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.