A. In fact, the Defendant misunderstanding (as to the victim H from among habitual assaults, the Defendant was only aware of the Defendant’s flabing of flab, thereby spreading the flab. The Defendant did not flab the flab.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six 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 lower court as to the assertion of mistake of fact, and the witness H and P’s respective legal statements, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

① The victim H paid the Defendant the value of scrap metal that the Defendant had not received by her husband from the investigative agency to the trial court at the trial court at the court, and said, the Defendant was aware of his fating and fating his fat.

Comparedly made statements.

On the other hand, the defendant, in the police investigation, tried to see himself as the floor of his hand, and avoided him, and her franchising as a hand.

The statement was made (No. 2 book No. 2, page 18 of the evidence record), and in the prosecutor's investigation, the victim himself/herself had flabbbbage with his/her flab.

The above victim made a statement (No. 2 book No. 1, 136 pages of the evidence record), and in the court, he made a repeated statement by stating that he did not have any flabbbling of the above victim.

② The victim H, at the court of first instance, made a relatively concrete statement in the situation at the time of the victim H, to the effect that he she was flabing the Defendant’s flab and clothes, and used the flabed her clothes and clothes in the upper direction, and subsequently, he saw that the flab was used on the floor. At that time, the witness P

In the police investigation, the Defendant sent a lusium to the floor by the victim.