A. Although it was true that the victim was injured in the course of misunderstanding of facts and victim E, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, it erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if it is not so, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

C. Even if not, the lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant and the victim have a dispute over the drinking value issue while drinking alcohol as the same person, the defendant who caused the cryp of beer's disease to the wall, and the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the defendant,

According to the above facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant, who was suffering from the disturbance with shoulder beer's disease, which is a dangerous object, had the willful negligence or the bodily injury of the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. According to the records of the judgment on the claim of mental disability, even though the defendant was found to have drunk at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the defendant's attitude before and after the crime of this case, and the speech and behavior, etc., it is not deemed that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case, and therefore, this part

C. The defendant's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing also seeks the victim's prior action against the defendant by mutual consent with the victim.