All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the victim C was under the influence of significant alcohol at the time of the occurrence of the instant case; and (b) the statement is not consistent; and (c) there is no credibility in the statement; (d) the fact that the Defendant abused C is not sufficiently proven.

The sentencing (six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Considering the misunderstanding of the prosecutor's facts (the fact of special violence) in light of the victim G's photographs and the victim's motion pictures, etc., the defendant may recognize the fact that he/she assaulted the victim G as a main soldier.

The above sentencing of the court below is unfair because it is too unfortunate.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts as to the grounds for appeal (the point of assault) at the lower court, namely, the victim C, in an investigative agency and court of the lower court, has consistently and specifically stated as to the causes of the Defendant’s vision, the developments leading up to and the situation at the time of the Defendant’s assaulting C, and the part of the assault, etc. at the time of the instant case. However, in light of the statements made by the investigative agency and the lower court, it appears that C was deemed that he was under the influence of alcohol, and that he was unaware of C’s statement, and that he did not in the state of memory or memory. Accordingly, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant had committed an assault by taking part in C’s face multiple times and by taking part in C.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant.

As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (a special assault), the lower court did not recognize the G's statement and the police's statement protocol concerning this part of the facts charged for the reasons stated in its reasoning, but did not provide any other evidence.