All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the facts (as to the crime No. 1 in the judgment below), the Defendant did not assault the victim in a taxi in operation.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of the suspended sentence of eight months, the observation of protection, and community service hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the fact that the victimized person was a victim in a taxi in operation as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, in full view of the specific and consistent statement at an investigative agency and court of the lower court, the upper part of the body, etc., and the circumstances recognized thereby, can be sufficiently recognized

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant did not appear to have the attitude of denying part of the instant crime until the Defendant was in the trial. The fact that the Defendant did not yet agree with the victim, and that the Defendant had been punished several times for violent crimes, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, considering the fact that the degree of assault in this case is relatively not much severe, favorable circumstances such as the Defendant committed the instant crime by contingency while drinking alcohol, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and changes of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and criminal history, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the defendant and the prosecutor.