A. In fact, the Defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim with a wooden plate and a fluorial pressure of fluor trees, and the victim suffered any injury by self-injury.

B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, while the Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. A victim’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is consistently stating the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury from the investigative agency to this court, as well as objective evidence, such as the written diagnosis of injury and the photographs of the injured party, also conforms to the victim’s statement, and thus, the victim’s statement is credibility.

Since the victim is well-known between the defendant and the victim, it is difficult to find out the reason to dismiss the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

B. The Defendant did not recover any damage to the victim by causing injury to the victim’s face and head with the pressure of tree board and the head of the tree boom.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the degree of injury inflicted by the Defendant appears to be relatively minor, and that the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of committing the crime, and the consequences of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is difficult to view it as unfair because it is too heavy or too low.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the defendant and prosecutor's argument.

3. As such, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.