The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below's scope of trial in this case dismissed the prosecutor's request for medical treatment and custody while rejecting the prosecution on the charge of violence, recognizing the defendant guilty of the attack, bodily injury, interference with business, or intimidation among the facts charged in this case. On this issue, the court below filed an appeal against the conviction part only by the defendant,

Accordingly, the dismissal of prosecution among the defendant's case was confirmed separately as it is. Meanwhile, in the case where only the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted a prosecuted case and dismissed the request for medical treatment and custody, there is no benefit in filing an appeal against the request for medical treatment and custody, and accordingly, Article 14 (2) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act, which is deemed as filing an appeal to the medical treatment and custody application case, is not applicable to this case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Do2823, 82Do611, Jan. 18, 1983, etc.). Ultimately, the subject of adjudication by this court is limited to the criminal facts found guilty among the accused cases.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, there is a fact that the Defendant attached a note that he would remit the fine for negligence paid to the restaurant entrance operated by the victim E, or it cannot be deemed as a threat of harm and injury to the extent that it may cause the victim to feel a fear, and there was no intention to mislead the Defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant E from the first police officer of May 2019.