A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine or 1) In fact, the fact that the Defendant, at the time of injury, abused the victim’s face by taking the victim’s face several times. However, since the victim did not receive hospital treatment and was naturally cured, the victim’s wife does not constitute “injury” under the Criminal Act.

2) 특수 상해의 점 피고인이 당시 피해자에게 나무젓가락이 아닌 치킨 뼛조각을 던졌을 뿐 젓가락을 던진 사실이 없고, 가사 피고인이 피해자에게 젓가락을 던졌다고

Even a wooden salt salt does not constitute a dangerous object of special bodily injury.

3) Although the Defendant was aware of the victim’s head and face face in the vehicle, the Defendant could not get off the vehicle or spread a sexually related video to the victim.

The victim was not detained by intimidation.

4) On April 2, 2017, the Defendant was under drinking alcohol at the time, but was not under driving.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court did not accept the said assertion in detail, with the title “judgment on the crime of injury” under Article 2-2(b) of the “judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion.”

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the ground of appeal in this part.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

The defendant.