A. Although it is possible to fully recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim due to the high credibility of the statement of the victim of this case, the court below acquitted the defendant on the part where the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, which was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (300,000 won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below was determined in light of the records, the above evidence alone is just and acceptable, and the court below's decision that judged that it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant was injured by the victim. Thus, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment in consideration of the following circumstances confirmed through the records and the purport of the entire pleadings.

The favorable circumstances: ① there was no criminal history on the Defendant; ② the Defendant was a considerable old age; ③ the Defendant was acquitted of the injury among the facts charged against the Defendant; ③ the maintenance of the sentence in the previous summary order would be unfair: ① the Defendant committed assault against the victim for a minor reason; ② the victim appears to have received a considerable mental impulse; ② the Defendant was able to receive a considerable amount of punishment; ② there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment; and the Defendant did not submit new sentencing data in the trial; and the sentencing conditions and the statutory penalty were taken into account.