A. Although the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, did not inflict any injury upon the victim G, the lower court, which recognized this, erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. At the time of the instant case with mental disorder, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness, where he was unable to drink drugs on a bipolartic disorder.

(c)

It is unfair that the sentence sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable (eight months of imprisonment).

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, that is, the defendant's statement in the court of original instance (a criminal defendant may not be easily aware that his confession made at will in the court of original instance may be the evidence of guilt. However, although the court of original instance was given the opportunity to contest with the assistance of a private legal counsel who is an attorney-at-law, the court of original instance led to confession of the facts of this case and made a false confession, considering the circumstances of confession made in the court of original instance reflected in sentencing.

However, in light of the fact that it is difficult to understand the above explanation, according to the police statement, agreement (Evidence No. 45), investigation report (Evidence No. 45), examination report (Evidence No. 46, evidence No. 46, such as a diagnosis of injury submitted by the victim, a pain medical certificate, a content certificate, etc.), and its accompanying documents, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted injury on G as stated in the facts of crime in the judgment of the court below.

B. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the process and content of the instant crime, means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime was committed; and (b) the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(c)

1) The lower court held that the Defendant’s allegation of sentencing was unfair.