A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of the legal principles, made a false statement contrary to his memory as he was not aware of his memory at the time of the examination of the instant case, and did not make a false statement contrary to his memory.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the Defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory as stated in the facts charged in the instant case and sufficiently admitted the facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

① As to the instant case (hereinafter “related case”), the Defendant made a concrete statement at an investigative agency to the effect that, in relation to the Busan District Court 2019 J. 490 B and C, etc. of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (hereinafter “the instant case”), the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was facing drinking and head face, drinking, knenee, knee, kneb, etc. from C, etc.,” including the background leading up to the instant case, the developments leading up to the Defendant’s assault, the method and situation of assault, etc., and the characteristic features that it is difficult to make a statement without direct experience (Evidence record No. 136-138, 193-194, 515-516). In particular, at the time of making the statement, the Defendant made a clear statement to the effect that “the Defendant was facing drinking and head face from B, and facing kne, knenene, knene, etc., from C.”

Nevertheless, the Defendant reversed the Defendant’s statement to the effect that “no person was abused by B or C” was present as a witness of the relevant case.

② At the time of examination of the instant case, the Defendant had been examined.