A. Although the Defendant was unilaterally assaulted by the victim at the time and place specified in the facts charged in this case, and did not assault the victim, the lower court found the victim guilty of all the facts charged in this case as evidence, including the statement of the victim and witness without credibility. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On April 18, 2016, the Defendant suffered injury from the E office located in the Cheongju-si Office (hereinafter “2-year-old office”) around 12:00, by misunderstanding that the Victim F (52) started by setting the sequences of the Victim F (52), and thus, the Defendant was at the time of vision with the victim and left the office, and the said victim continued to go back to the office, once again, the Defendant sustained the victim’s son’s son with the victim’s hand while continuing to go back to the office. Even after the driver affiliated with E left from the office, the Defendant sustained injury, such as thale, which requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment.

2) At around 16:30 on December 14, 2016, the Defendant appeared in the court No. 423 of Cheongju District Court No. 423, Cheongju District Court No. 423, Cheongju District Court No. 1788, Cheongju-gu, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and testified as a witness of the injury case against Defendant F.

Defendant 1’s prosecutor of the instant case “Is no person who assaults the Defendant.”

“Isked, unfolded,” and “Isked.”

Although testimony was made on April 18, 2016, it was difficult for the Defendant and F to take advantage of each other outside of the E office located in the petition-gu, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and used F to assault and injure F as described in paragraph (1) above.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

B. The lower court’s determination is as follows.