A. The lower court found guilty of a special assault among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., (i) the victim made a concrete statement about the situation at the time of the instant case, including: (i) the defendant was unable to go through the kitchen with his own kitchen, brought about his own kitchen with his own kitchen; (ii) the victim suffered losses in the course of preventing him; (iii) the victim’s damaged photograph; and (iv) the defendant led to the confession of his crime during the third trial of the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed an assault with him by carrying a cell, which is a dangerous object, such as this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. In light of the fact that the sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty that the discretionary determination takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors attached to the sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court’s sentencing is more favorable to the Defendant.