A. Although the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts and legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court determined that the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim as stated in the lower judgment’s decision, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the ground that, in full view of the circumstances set forth in its reasoning, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim as stated in the lower judgment.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the defendant's assertion, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

The defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

B. The lower court, based on the overall circumstances, takes into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim several times; (b) the Defendant did not receive a letter from the injured party or have not agreed to do so; and (c) the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct; (d) the background and motive leading to the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and arguments, considering the favorable circumstances that the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment, other than the punishment imposed once by a fine.