A. The Defendant (unfair punishment)’s imprisonment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. According to all evidence of mistake of facts (not guilty part) the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged due to misunderstanding of facts, even though the Defendant sufficiently recognized the Defendant’s assault by combining the victim H’s grandchildren as stated in the facts charged, the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing is too un

2. Determination

A. A. On June 21, 2015, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (i) the Defendant assaulted the disabled by putting the victim H (18 years of age) on the ground that the victim’s bodily harm was met after the surgery; (ii) the court below’s duly adopted and examined evidence; (iii) the prosecutor stated this part of the facts charged as a violation of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities and stated Article 86(3)2 and Article 59-7 subparag. 2 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities as applicable provisions of the Act, but the establishment and punishment of the crime should be governed by the Act at the time of the act; (iv) Article 86 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which punishs the act of assaulting the body of the disabled, was amended by Act No. 13666, Jun. 22, 2015; and (v) the provision of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was enforced on December 23, 2015.