A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (a crime No. 1 in the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, a suspended sentence for two years, and a crime No. 2 in the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the crime No. 2 (Crimes of Special Violence) of the judgment of the court below in misunderstanding the facts, in light of the fact that the victim G, which is a dangerous object of the defendant, has broken the son’s disease at the prosecutor’s office, and made a detailed and detailed statement to the effect that he was able to go to himself, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had dancing, which is a dangerous object for the victim. Nevertheless, the court below found the fact erroneous and acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged. 2) The above sentence of the court below against the defendant of unreasonable sentencing

2. Determination

A. On September 1, 2017, at around 07:00, the Defendant made a statement on the summary of this part of the facts charged by the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts. At the time of making a statement at the prosecutor’s office, the Defendant stated that the Defendant did not make the above statement at the prosecutor’s office that he was the victim G did not drink with him, and that he refused to drink with him, and acted without her. G was the victim G on the part of the victim G, who was a dangerous object after he left the table. The lower court determined that the victim G did not make the above statement at the prosecutor’s office that he was the victim’s disease, and then passed again after he was frighted with the driver’s office. At the time of making a statement at the prosecutor’s office, the victim G did not make the first statement at the prosecutor’s office to reverse the Defendant’s statement from the prosecutor’s office that he was the victim’s first demand and to threaten him, and that the victim’s statement at the time of making a statement is inconsistent with G’s statement.