All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court of first instance on the ground of mistake of facts that the Defendant did not assault the victim C, etc., and even though the Defendant could not assault the victim H because of the lack of space in the written subway station since the Defendant lent transportation cards to the lender at the time, the judgment of the court of second instance was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, and the judgment of the court below on the contrary is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected

B. Each sentence of the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: the fine of two million won, the second instance court: the fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, this case’s judgment is in a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and as long as this court concurrently tried and tried, the Defendant should be sentenced to one punishment for each of the above crimes pursuant to Article 38 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, since the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, the following should be examined.

B. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the above court below, such as the witness C, D, and E’s respective legal statements in the court below as to the judgment of the court below as to the allegation of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at the time, was able to capture and trace the crop of the victim D's breath, which was the victim D's breath, and then was satched, and was satched by the head, and the victim E's face was satched, and the victim E's face was sated. Thus, the above argument of mistake of facts is without merit.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the witness H’s legal statement and investigation report (attached to the details of use of suspect specific and welfare cards), as to the judgment of the court below 2, is examined.