A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant 1, while the victim was in dispute with the victim, offered a fluorped instant instant case where the victim was fluored on the receipt fluor, and there was no fact that the fluorped instant case containing a very hot one motor vehicle as indicated in the facts charged was on the fluoral part of E’s chest.

As such, the act of the defendant's act of releasing chip on the chip for the receipt of chip games does not constitute violence, since it does not directly exercise the chip of the victim's body.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, and whether G did not engage in any lawful act against the Defendant at the place of interview with G, the president of the instant hospital immediately after the instant case.

“The patient-centered hospital?” ? the patient-centered hospital?

staff-centered hospital;

was accepted by the court.

It was well salved.

It has its nature, and even if so, it is an animal of the appraisal, and in case of a death, whether it is a son.

If we look at the circumstances, such as “the fact that the Defendant respondeded to the World Cup, and did not deny the fact that the Defendant was on the chest part of the victim, the fact that the Defendant was on the chest part of the victim’s chest may be sufficiently recognized.

In addition, the defendant's act constitutes violence as referred to in Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act as an unlawful exercise of force against the victim's body (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6800, Sept. 24, 2009). This part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

3. The instant crime of determining the illegality of sentencing by both parties is against the victim who is a hospital employee.