The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant in Chapter 1 did not assault B as stated in the facts charged, nor did he commit indecent act by compulsion against F, or did not inflict any injury on F.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court that found the defendant guilty of the relevant part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B. Chapter 2: (a) The self-defense or excessive defense is recognized with respect to the Defendant’s act of inflicting bodily injury on G and C, such as the facts charged; (b) but, instead, the judgment of the first instance court that found the Defendant guilty was erroneous by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the first proposal, when the appellate court intends to re-examine the first instance judgment after an ex post facto and ex post facto determination, the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous in the determination of evidence of the first instance, although there was no objective reason that could affect the formation of documentary evidence in the process of the trial.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the first instance court. The first instance court rejected the Defendant’s assertion through the examination of evidence, such as five and nine examination of witness, and found the Defendant guilty of the relevant part of the facts charged. As to this, the lower court explained the grounds for its determination at the bottom of “the summary of evidence”.

A thorough examination of the above judgment by the court of first instance compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence are ① the defendant at the beginning.