A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant did not have an intention of assault since he was subjected to the victim’s cocon part in the process of milching the relevant head after the victim E’s head. 2) The Defendant merely cited a golf straw and did not have any damage, etc. or the body of the victim E in a golf stic method.

3) E, one of the husbands of the victim G, was in custody of the victim, and the Defendant was in custody of the victim, and there was no fact that the victim was in custody of the victim. B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination on the assertion that there was no intention to commit an assault against the victim E was duly adopted and investigated as follows: (i) the victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, expressed the victim’s face at the head by consistently stating that “the Defendant was the head of the Defendant, who was faced with the Defendant’s hand, while avoiding the Defendant’s back to the lower court. There was no intention to commit an assault against the victim’s face” in light of the following circumstances: (a) the victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, stated from the Defendant that “the Defendant was the head of the Defendant. There was no fact that the Defendant had attempted to keep the Defendant up to the face of the victim.”

2) The reasoning of the lower court’s determination as to the assertion that there was no son or son’s son’s son or son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son