The defendant of the misapprehension of the legal principle is merely a blicking one time of the victim, and the victim's eye was not healthy due to the previous surgery, etc., so there was no predictability about the significant result of the victim's left eye.

The imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

On the other hand, the court below rejected the above assertion in detail under the title "the judgment on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment of the court below, which states that the defendant's assertion is identical to the grounds for appeal of this case. In light of the records and legal principles, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below in light of such records and legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous as otherwise

The defendant's judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing was contingent upon the victim's false statement, paid part of the medical expenses, and made a mistake against the victim. However, the victim has sustained a life-long life due to one of the crimes in this case, and the victim has continuously complained against the defendant, and all of the sentencing conditions, including the defendant's age, family relation, criminal record, occupation, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below against the defendant cannot be deemed to be unfair because the sentence against the defendant is too excessive. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the appeal by the defendant is groundless.

However, according to the records, it is obvious that "Article 257 of the Criminal Act" in the column of application of the law is a clerical error, and it is corrected to "Article 258 of the Criminal Act".