All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant, in his hand, was aware of the victim E’s bather bat and pushed the chest, and was listed on the ship. However, he did not look at the face of E due to drinking.

On the other hand, the defendant was responding to the victims by fasting the victims during the process of defending the fighting, and it cannot be said that the victims assaulted the victims on the face of violent habit.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the defendant sufficiently recognized the fact that the victim D had caused an unexpected injury in the number of days of treatment as stated in the facts charged.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court may fully recognize the facts of assault, such as: (a) the Defendant, by hand, sealed the victim E’s e-mail and pushed the chest; and (b) the victim’s face was cut on the back on the ship; and (c) the Defendant’s flobed one time.

In addition, considering all the circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character, occupation, environment, criminal record, motive, means, method and place of the offense, and the interval between time and the previous offense, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant has a habit of an act of violence and committed the offense in this case as a cause of such a habit.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court decided in the “not guilty portion” of the judgment.