The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the victim E and G of the facts charged of this case on the ground of the fact that each statement of the victim E and G is inconsistent in the place and method of violence, and there is no credibility in light of the testimony of witness F and the testimony of witness, etc.

B. An act of self-defense or a lawful act by the defendant to restrain the victim's access by extending out his/her arms constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, as it is to defend the other party's assault.

C. The first instance judgment on the unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the victim E consistently from the investigative agency to the first instance trial, and stated that the victim E was subject to assault from the Defendant, such as drinking faces the face, etc. from the Defendant, even though going to the outside of the first instance trial, and the victim, his father, heard that the victim was assaulted by the Defendant, and there is a little difference in the detailed method of assault, etc., although he stated that the victim was the victim, his father, and made a statement with the same difference in the facts of assault. However, the victim immediately after the instant case, he was treated with the hospital, and the victim was reported to the police at the request of G, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed the assault of the victim, such as the instant facts charged, so the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

B. According to the record as to the self-defense or the assertion of legitimate act, the Defendant: (a) stated that F, the head of a restaurant in which he had a fright to drink in a restaurant, stated that F, who had a fright to drink in the restaurant, did not speak against the victim E; (b) became a Si expenses; and (c) the Defendant and the victim, who had a fright to drink in the restaurant, fell into a cafeteria