A. The statement of the victim of mistake of facts is not consistent and thus cannot be trusted, and the content of the written diagnosis of injury was around May 2, 2013, prior to the instant crime, that the victim performed a rooftop repair work of the victim’s building, and did not use stairs, and that the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim.

Even if the defendant's assault was somewhat poor due to the victim's assault, it does not cause an impediment to daily life due to extremely minor circumstances naturally cured, and thus does not constitute an injury as referred to in the crime of injury.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is determined that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged, and this constitutes an injury in the crime of injury.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

(1) At the time of the investigation agency, the victim made a concrete statement on the grounds for and circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s injury, the method of injury, and the circumstances after injury. Although there are some differences in the detailed part, it is deemed that the statement is consistent as a whole, as well as that of the entire statement.

(2) At the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the victim made a statement to the H Hospital to the effect that “the victim had committed an assault against the Defendant,” and the written diagnosis of the injury is indicated as “dual and ballbalbalbalbalbs.”

On the other hand, the above written diagnosis is critical.