A. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the fact that the defendant has exercised force against the victim, and (ii) the victim made a statement that corresponds to the facts in the instant case from the investigative agency to the court of the court below. The victim’s statement is specific and consistent; (iii) the victim was issued a written diagnosis at the hospital on October 18, 2017, approximately two weeks after the crime in this case; and (iv) the victim’s part and degree of the injury as stated in the written diagnosis correspond to the above victim’s statement; and (v) the victim’s body parts and photographs taken immediately after this case conform to the above victim’s statement, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The Defendant rendered a judgment of misapprehension of the legal doctrine that the Defendant had the wheels of the victim as a handsaw.

One of the arguments has no evidence to prove it.

In addition, even if the injured party assaulted the injured party as alleged by the defendant, if the injured party inflicted an injury on the injured party, it is reasonable to view that the injured party committed an active attack beyond the extent of defense that can be recognized as a legitimate defense.

Therefore, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense.

(c)

The degree of injury suffered by the victim for the determination of the illegal claim for sentencing is relatively somewhat weak.

The defendant.