The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below's scope of trial in this case dismissed the prosecution against the victims C, G, and I among the facts charged in this case, and sentenced the verdict of conviction against each of the remaining facts charged. Since only the defendant appealed against the guilty part of the judgment below for the following reasons, the dismissal of prosecution not appealed by the prosecutor among the judgment below was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not have had the victim affected by using a dubage or dub, flaps, or flaps with the victim’s face, and there was no fact that he saw the victim as to the obstruction of business, but did not interfere with the restaurant business by using force due to abusiveism and assault, etc., the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this part of the charges, and there was an error of misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. At the time of the surgery, the Defendant got to commit each of the crimes of this case under the influence of alcohol, where he had the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not consider statutory mitigation is unlawful.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the flag or the flag of CCTV images at the victim E-cafeteria, the Defendant was faced with the victim with her bones flag, and continued to her flag.