A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not have inflicted an injury on the victim F. Defendant 1 (as to the injury to the victim F.).

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victim was assaulted by the victim from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court by hand and flab; ② the witness J of the first instance trial stated that the Defendant was on board the victim’s body by taking flabbbbing over the floor; ② the witness J did not directly flab the victim when the Defendant was on the part of the victim, unlike the statement made by the investigative agency in the court of the lower trial; on the other hand, the Defendant was on the part of the victim’s body and at the investigative agency

Although the J testified that there is no statement, the statement made by the investigative agency is not sufficient to be regarded as a statement about the contents that the person did not experience, in part, consistent with the statement made by the defendant, the victim, and the witness F of the original trial. The credibility of the statement made by the investigative agency is found, ③ The witness K of the original trial also reported that the damaged person was able to raise his loss to the defendant, and there is a few parts of the statement made by the victim and the defendant.

“Statement to the effect that the testimony was made to the effect that the testimony was difficult to believe in light of the empirical rule that there was a lack of witness to a situation that occurred in the middle of another day in such an exceptional situation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1448, Apr.

(4) The defendant makes a statement in an investigative agency as well as the victim's breath in his breath before her breath, against which he can breath the victim's breath.