A. Although the Defendant, by misunderstanding the facts, did not assault the victim’s breath and spath, he was guilty of the facts charged of the instant assault, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below made a statement to the effect that "A police K who was dispatched to the site at the time of arrival at the site was fighting on the body of the defendant, such as the defendant's attempt to build a sound device and the victim was sponsed with each other while blocking them, and the victim was sponsed, and sponsed with each other," which is acknowledged as a whole by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. ② The victim and his children stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below that at the time of the case, the defendant was sponsed with his arms at the time of the case. It appears that there was a certain degree of body fighting between the defendant and the victim. ③ Even if the CCTV image was cut off and taken photographs, it was confirmed that the police police was sponsed with each other at the time of the case, as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant's assault and sponsing the body of the victim.

B. It is recognized that the extent of assault exercised by the Defendant regarding the determination of the illegality of sentencing is not limited.

However, it is not good to commit the instant crime; the Defendant again committed the instant crime even if he had been committed several times of violence; the Defendant did not recover or reach an agreement to recover damage up to the conviction; the sentencing balance with the Defendants in the lower court; the Defendant’s age, sex and environment; the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime.