The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the absence of a misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant did not inflict an injury by putting the victim H’s face at one time due to the decline of dangerous things, the lower court convicted of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. In light of the legal principles, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecution on the ground that the instant indictment constitutes abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution, as it unfairly prolongedized the investigation of the instant case and omitted prosecution, even though it was able to prosecute the instant case and another case.

(c)

Sentencing improper sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of fact, are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (i) the victim was faced with the face from the Defendant at the investigative agency.

The statement, 2. The witness G deemed that the defendant left the face of the victim H due to the difference in the investigative agency.

In light of the following: (a) the consistently stated statement; (b) the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant case; (c) the type of the goods used by the Defendant in causing injury to the victims; (d) the statement made by the investigative agency of G as to the victim’s injury; and (c) G reconsing the statement to the effect that the Defendant did not directly witness the victim’s injury in the lower trial; and (d) G did not have any direct witness in the lower trial, but it is difficult for G to find out the reason for the Defendant to make a false statement at the time of making a statement at an investigative agency; and (d) the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant made a false statement

B. According to the record of judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the police confirmed the J as co-offenders of this case according to evidence, such as the statement of the relevant persons, and investigated the case, and appointed the J.