A. In fact, even though the Defendant, on August 21, 2016, was able to find the head of the victim D as a beer’s disease at the restaurant of “C” on August 21, 2016, there was no fact that the Defendant was her head from the beer’s disease.

In addition, from August 25, 2016 to the end of cement block on August 25, 2016, the defendant was friendly that he was living the victim, but there was no fact that the victim was living in cement block.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, can be acknowledged based on the following circumstances: (i) the victim, at the police station, “The victim was making a talk with drinking while drinking alcohol on August 21, 2016 at a time on August 21, 2016; and (ii) the Defendant left the back of the Defendant’s resistance.”

“The Defendant was asked, and how assaulted, did not directly see what the Defendant was his head.”

In addition, I did not shoulder and added heads to several times.

“The victim stated that the Defendant was wrong at the police station on August 25, 2016.”

In the process of drinking alcohol, we met with drinking alcohol, and saw the victim's right eye with drinking eye, and ice flick flick flick with the victim's right eye.

The defendant made a statement as "...... the details of the statement on the circumstances are specific and natural, and ② On the other hand, the defendant is under investigation by the police, and he is under investigation on August 21, 2016 and is not memory in detail.

The film of Mauritius was cut.

The credibility of the victim’s statement is recognized in full view of the fact that the situation at the time appears to be unsatisfying, such as the statement to the purport that it is “

Therefore, it is true.