A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts is likely to have the Defendant’s hand in contact with the victim’s her son’s son and her son while receiving her math from the victim, but not intentionally her 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.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement of the judgment.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just.

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

B. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant, as above.

In full view of all the circumstances that serve as conditions for sentencing in this court, the judgment of the court below was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion, or there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below.

In addition, the court below's sentencing is too heavy or unfasible, taking into account the following factors: the defendant's age, environment, background and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the reasonable scope of discretion is determined.