A. As to Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts, the Defendant did not commit an assault, as indicated in the facts charged, such as misunderstanding of the facts, by taking the victim’s head, and taking the victim’s head, and taking the victim’s head back again.

Second, with regard to the injury, the defendant only has the fact that he/she has been her at the time, but does not commit an injury by assaulting the victim, such as the statement in the facts charged.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact 1) First, at the trial of the trial of the party, the prosecutor deleted the “influencing the victim on the table on the table,” and the “influencing the victim on the table, etc.” as “influcing the victim on the table, etc.” under Article 1(1)3 of the instant facts charged. The indictment was corrected to consider the Defendant’s assertion of mistake within the scope of the corrected facts charged, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the Defendant’s “influcencing the victim on the table by hand,” and the “influcencing the victim on the table, etc.” under Article 4 of the instant facts charged.

2) The police officer also stated that “The victim was frighten and frighten and frightened by the victim,” such as “the victim was frighten and frighted by the victim,” and stated in the lower court that “the victim was frighten and frighted by the victim, who was frighten and frighted by the Defendant,” and that “the victim was frighten and frighted by the Defendant,” and that the victim stated in the lower court that “the victim was frighten and frighted by the Defendant,” and that “the victim was frighten and frighted by the police to the court of the lower court (202 pages of