All the judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The statements of the victim F and witness G, who correspond to the facts of this case, are not consistent, and the contents of witness H’s statement do not constitute a statement that the defendant injured the victim. Thus, the above evidence alone cannot be acknowledged that the defendant injured the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. Each sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and the court decided to hold a joint hearing of all the above cases of appeal.

In doing so, each of the offenses against the Defendant by the lower court constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a sentence should be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake about the first instance court is still subject to a trial by this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (the first instance judgment)

A. The lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal.

In regard to this, the court of the court of the original instance consistently suffered from the Defendant’s assault as to the facts charged from the investigation agency to the court of the original instance, i.e., various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the court of the original instance.

The statement is made, ② the witness G's legal statement is consistent with the victim's statements, and H, the operator of E, is the E.