A. In fact, Defendant A did not inflict an injury on the victim on November 2, 2015, and Defendant B did not assault the victim at the time of the above day, but the lower court convicted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentencing against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the lower court in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim has consistently and specifically stated from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, the background leading up to the Defendants’ vision, specific horses and actions of the Defendants at the time of the instant case, etc.; (ii) the witness: (a) the investigative agency from the witness to the court of the lower court, to the court of the lower court, and (b) the Defendant A went beyond the victim’s breath and forced to attract the victim’s breath and forced to attract the victim’s breath; and (c) the Defendant B had consistently observed the Defendant A, his father, who was a father.

In light of the fact that it is difficult for the Defendants to understand the fact that they committed violence against the victims and the fact that they inflicted bodily injury on the victims is sufficiently recognized, and the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit. In light of the above, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the extent of assault committed by the Defendants to determine the unfair argument of sentencing is not limited, and that Defendant A does not have the same criminal record.

However, it is not good that the crime of this case is committed, and the defendants are the victim until the case is examined.