A. Defendant 1’s assertion 1) misunderstanding of facts (special intimidation and special injury) did not constitute intimidation against the victim. Although the victim was flaged, it was merely flag, not flag, but flag flag, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the sole basis of the victim’s statement without credibility. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending of facts. 2) The sentence (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the

B. The Prosecutor’s assertion that the Defendant’s above sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victim’s statement is consistent, concrete, and includes any content that is not possible to make a statement without direct experience; ② the victim’s child also stated that the victim has exercised violence against the victim; ② the victim’s child has made a statement in detail as the victim’s statement; ③ the victim did not directly report or file a complaint; ③ the police officer obtained a intelligence that “the Defendant has exercised violence against his wife and his children,” and the victim made a statement only after the investigation into the victim.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The fact that the Defendant did not have any identical criminal record in determining the allegation of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, and that the act of assaulting his or her children was deemed to have included the intent of punishing the Defendant would have been favorable to the Defendant.

However, even though the defendant has exercised serious violence against his family for a long time, he does not seem to have a consistent and consistent attitude in favor of him.