A. Defendant A (1) In the event of an accident in which a mistake of facts was committed while the Defendants engaged in a provoking work, and the Defendants did not intentionally cut their fingers, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant B’s occurrence of an accident that was cut off by contingency while Defendant B engaged in selective cutting, and did not intentionally cut fingers, the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant B of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misapprehending of legal principles or misapprehending of legal principles.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. At the time of the original adjudication, Defendant A made a similar assertion in the original adjudication on the misapprehension of facts against Defendant A with respect to the case of 2018 Godan2821, and the lower court appears to have cut the fingers by 3 times or more in the fingers, such as (i) protruding off the number of no less than 3 and no more than 5, according to the analysis and interpretation of T (T) response services and engineering analysis report, (ii) protruding out the number of no less than 4, and cutting the length differently, and (iii) viewing that the fingers were cut by 5 times or more in the fingers; and (iv) according to the medical advisory response in the law of U.S. written by the Gannam University, Defendant A appears not to have cut the fingers, but to have cut the fingers at the same time; and (iv) according to the fact that Defendant A’s fingers were intentionally seen as a result of the analysis and analysis of his fingers damage to 4 sons.