All appeals by the defendant against the judgment below are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below 2 of the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the second instance judgment) 1 of the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the second instance judgment) 2 of the 2nd instance trial witness D had the defendant withdraw from the court on the grounds of witness protection and proceed with the examination procedure and infringed the defendant's right to cross-examine the witness D, so the testimony of D cannot

2) The Defendant’s act of roots the victim’s arms constitutes a passive defensive act to escape from the victim’s exercise of unfair tangible power, i.e., blocking the Defendant or putting the Defendant’s clothes.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (the first instance court) of the unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of four months and the detention of fifteen days) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below against the defendant in the judgment of consolidation was rendered, and the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to consolidate the two appeals cases. However, if the respective punishments of the court below are different from the imprisonment with prison labor and the fine, the appellate court may maintain the respective punishments sentenced by the court below, and even if the arguments of the court below were combined, the appellate court shall not reverse the judgment of the court below ex officio on the ground of the consolidation, since it does not necessarily require a single kind

B. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) When the presiding judge recognizes that a witness cannot make a sufficient statement in the presence of the defendant pursuant to Article 297 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the defendant's assertion of infringement of the defendant's right to cross-examination, the presiding judge may allow the defendant to leave the court and restrict the defendant's direct confrontation with the witness by continuing the examination of witness. However, in such cases, the defendant