All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Prosecutor’s sentence (8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2) Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant did not assault the victim E, or interfere with nursing, care, and operation.

Even if the defendant committed violence or exercised force, the defendant was guilty.

This constitutes legitimate defense or legitimate act, which is aimed at setting up against group assault by hospital employees at the time.

However, the lower court found all of the facts charged guilty.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case is justifiable

1) As to the crime of assault, ① the Defendant was fluoring with the staff in charge of the issuance of documents at the hospital’s clinic department, and the Defendant stated to the effect that three male employees were fluoring three male employees and fluoring up to 20-30 times, leading out of the Defendant (an investigation record 45-46 pages). On the other hand, the lower court’s witness J, E, and K stated to the effect that the Defendant was fluored at a hospital as indicated in the facts charged, and that he was fluoring out of the hospital (the trial record 79-80 pages, the 86-80 pages, the 93-94 pages, the 93-94 page). ② According to the screen of the suspension of images recorded in CCTV at the time (the investigation record 79-85 pages), it does not seem that the Defendant was fluoring or making a male employee use of the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant was in favor of the hospital employees.

There is a somewhat different difference between the defendant's upper part and the defendant's upper part (the investigation record No. 88-91 page), and it is difficult to view the above upper part's upper part's upper part's upper part's upper part's upper part's upper part

Although it is difficult to believe that the defendant's statement that does not comply with objective circumstances, the statement of the court below witness is made.