A. There is no misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim.

In addition, even if the defendant was aware that he had falbbbling and drinking the victim's head, it constitutes self-defense against the victim's escape.

However, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's crime of injury is erroneous in mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. On December 31, 2013, the lower court duly adopted and examined the allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, namely, only stated to the effect that “the victim was suffering from scam and scambling (24 pages of investigation records)” with respect to his first police injury, and that “the victim was suffering from scambling the victim’s face” (23 pages of investigation records), but at that time, the Defendant stated that he abused the victim’s face (including 23 pages of investigation records), and subsequently stated consistently to the effect that the victim was suffering from injury caused by the Defendant’s assault up to the court of the lower court’s trial. On December 31, 2013, the date of the instant case, the victim was diagnosed by “non-scambling,” etc. The police and court of the lower court, who was witness, had taken care of the victim’s face at the scene of the instant case (hereinafter “the victim and the victim’s face immediately after scambling the victim’s face).”

Therefore, the defendant is the victim.