A. A. The police officer stated in the court below that the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) and the police officer at the scene at the time stated that the victim’s fingers cannot be memory well, but this is natural in light of the passage of time, repetition of similar cases, etc.

Rather, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the statement of the victim who made a detailed statement to the investigation agency, it can be acknowledged that the defendant, by hand, has inflicted an injury by plucking or plucking the victim's finger.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, forty hours of community service, and 80 hours of alcohol treatment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts (related to the point of injury) 1) The Defendant of this part of the facts charged: (a) around 00:40 on March 12, 2017, the Defendant reported that the Defendant assaulted F on the street in the front of Gwangju City, Gwangju City, by 112, the perpetrator, who was the police officer belonging to the G District Station of the Gwangju Police Station, who was called for the said report, prevented the Defendant; (b) obstructed the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the report by 112, by assaulting the victim’s fingers, such as plucking, plucking, etc., and at the same time, laid down the down down the upper end of five raw waters where the number of days of treatment cannot be known to the victim.

2) The lower court determined that there were some legal statements made by the victim and H as evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, each police statements made by the victim and H, each police statement made by the victim, photographs, diagnosis records, black stuffs image, field CCTV, etc., but the Defendant and the defense counsel did not plick or plick the victim’s fingers.

The victim asserts that he is the defendant at the investigative agency.