A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty for the crime of injury, although the defendant was assaulted by B and E, and did not have inflicted an injury by assaulting them, is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the victim B, E, and witness F, who reported and experienced the crime of this case several times at the investigative agency and the court of the court below, and all these statements correspond to the facts charged of this case. They are in itself independent of them, and they are consistent, contradictory, and contradictory, and they appear to be specific and natural; in particular, witness F was a non-related person with the defendant and victims, on the day of the crime of this case, on the day of the crime of this case, he was on board the same subway vehicle and appeared to have been given a witness of this case, and there seems to be no special reason to make a false statement or statement unfavorable to the defendant; it seems that the victims were issued with a written diagnosis of injury; and there seems to be no special reason to cause injury other than the crime of this case, it is difficult to recognize the facts of the defendant due to the assault and injury of the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the assertion of mistake of facts by the defendant cannot be justified.

B. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing is the Defendant who attached minor trial costs within a subway.