A. In fact that a mistake of facts accused misunderstanding the victim's head by scambling the victim's head, however, the victim cannot be deemed to have suffered bodily injury such as an open wound of the two skins due to the above assault, and the above injury was caused by the victim's own head from the wall.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the defendant led an investigative agency and the court below to the crime of this case, and denied the crime of this case; (ii) the confession is consistent and specific to the investigative agency and the court below; (iii) the victim and witness E also stated in the investigative agency that the head of the victim was cut down due to the spackner; and (iv) even if the victim was taken out of the wall in the situation at the time, it seems difficult to deem that the head of the victim could have suffered bodily injury, such as tearing the head of the victim; and (v) it is difficult to deem that the defendant was the head of the victim upon the spackner, and that the victim was injured by the open body of the victim, etc.; and the above injury directly received the head from the wall.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The fact that the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant under an agreement with the victim on the argument of unfair sentencing is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, even though the defendant was a large number of criminal records of the same kind of violence and was a suspended sentence due to the crime of injury, it is not good to commit the crime, such as leaving the crime of the special injury in the second case, and leaving the head of the body, which is a dangerous object, which can cause a big injury.