A. As to the violence against the victim of mistake of facts C (2019 Highest 119), according to the evidence, the fact that the Defendant was breading the victim C’s breath, or at least the Defendant threatened the victim by hand, as the Defendant would bread the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, since it rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged.

B. The prosecutor stated in the petition of appeal that “the acquittal portion has a substantial impact on the sentencing,” and stated in the statement of grounds of appeal that “the appellate brief contains the purport that the sentencing of the lower court is somewhat minor because it has a substantial impact on the sentencing by deciding not guilty of the facts charged,” and did not explicitly and specifically state the allegation of unfair sentencing as to the guilty portion.

However, there may be room to view “victims” as well as “victims who did not make an apology and agreement with the victim” in the contents of the grounds of appeal, which include not only C of the non-guilty part, but also G as the victim of the crime of injury in the judgment below. Thus, the prosecutor considers the guilty part of the lower court as

The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the following points as to the Defendant’s assault against the Defendant’s victim C, i.e.,: (a) the Defendant stated in the court below that the Defendant did not have memory as to his faton; (b) the Defendant’s clothes presented as evidence to the prosecution that the Defendant teared his faton; and (c) G and N in the present site were the body of G, not the victim, the husband; and (d) G and N in the court below stated to the effect that the Defendant did not fat the victim’s faton.