The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not assault the Victim G at the time of misunderstanding the fact about the crime of injury to the Victim G in the holding of the lower judgment, and the injury of the Victim G is highly likely that the Victim G suffers from the Defendant’s birth, E, and the Victim F, who would be punished for his body fighting.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury by assaulting the Victim G by assaulting the Victim G.

A. The statements of the victim G and F are consistent and concrete, consistent and credibility, that the defendant suffered from the defect that the victim G want to take a photograph on a mobile phone by drinking the victim G when the victim G was faced with the shoulder and face of the victim G.

나. 경찰관이 현장에 출동 직후 촬영한 사진에 의하면 당시 피해자 G의 어깨가 빨갛게 부어오른 것을 확인할 수 있다.

(c)

E and the victim F's statement had a physical fighting to the extent that the first stiffes each other's shoulder, and in this case, the victim G said that the victim F was satisfed in the future.

In light of the above statements, the body fighting between E and the victim F seems not to have displayed to the extent that the body would inflict an injury on the victim G.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment because new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the sentencing grounds revealed in the instant argument are considered comprehensively.