The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts - Infliction of injury to the U - The defendant has a fact that the defendant has taken his face by drinking, but did not look at U U co.

Therefore, even though there is no causal link between the Defendant’s assault and U’s injury, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the whole of the judgment of unfair sentencing - The lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On August 14, 2015, at around 00:05, the Defendant: (a) sent a singing in “S Kinginginging machine” located in R on an original city with the victim T (34 years of age) and U.S. (30 years of age); (b) sent a face to the victim T on the ground that the Defendant had a drinking face from the victim T, without any justifiable reason, and (c) sent the face of the victim to the victim T by drinking, and continued to go beyond the victim T on one occasion; and (d) took the face of the victim T by drinking.

As a result, the defendant suffered injury to the victim T, such as the injury of the left-hand face in the treatment period, and the injury to the victim U during the treatment period.

B. (1) The Defendant led to the confession of this part of the facts charged in the lower judgment, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged in accordance with the evidence indicated in the judgment

Hashel Hashel, the process and degree of the assault of the defendant, the relationship between the victims and the defendant, and the victim did not receive the punishment of the defendant from the following day of the assault of the defendant, but the bones of the defendant was laid down in the Atoxi hospital due to the defendant's assault, and the defendant stated that the diagnosis was not issued (Article 39 of the Investigation Records).