The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. Fact-finding, the Defendant did not interfere with funeral ceremony on December 2, 2016, and did not damage the victim G’s hand phone racul, and did not damage the victim G’s face on March 10, 2017, and the victim’s face did not appear in the victim’s face on March 10, 2017, and the victim’s injury was irrelevant to the Defendant. ③ The victim’s assaulted the victim’s M on May 8, 2017; however, the victim’s injury does not constitute an injury as it does not result in the Defendant’s act, but does not entirely interfere with the daily life; ④ March 6, 2017.

5. 30.

7.24.

8.12.

9. 5. There was no fact that each disturbance interferes with work, and 5. There was no fact that, on August 12, 2017, a police officer mobilized that the alcohol level was calculated even though he was drunkly not memoryd, and that he did not take a bath against a police officer dispatched.

B. With respect to the crime of fraud as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine on October 18, 2017 for the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act where the basic facts were the same as those of October 18, 2017.

Therefore, since the above judgment is not effective in the above crime of fraud, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced on the above crime of fraud.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, i.e., G, in an investigative agency and the lower court’s court, i.e., “B attempted to enter into the first place of funeral ceremony, where two persons, such as the Defendant, etc., drink, sound, and sound.”

A request for return, but the defendant et al. has extracted the flowers leaves in front of the funeral ceremony in his hand.

Defendant

In the situation where the defendant et al. was prevented, the defendant et al. has broken down (e.g.) by cutting his mobile phone.

“The fact consistently stated,” even by CD images.