The motion for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case shall be dismissed.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant was indicted for the instant facts charged in a state that he was unable to undergo any investigation from a prosecutor due to the instant case, thereby infringing the Defendant’s right to defense, thereby violating the due process principle under the Criminal Procedure Act.

3) The statement of the victim is prepared by the assistant special judicial police officer, not by the judicial police officer or the prosecutor, but by the third party, not by the judicial police officer or the prosecutor. This cannot be evidence as violating Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Even if the defendant assaulted the victim, it is resistanceed to the illegal performance of official duties, and the illegality is excluded as it constitutes legitimate self-defense, legitimate act or self-help.

5) Since the victim received a written diagnosis of injury from an outside of a dental clinic even though the victim was damaged, the medical certificate of injury was not false or reliable, there is no photograph of the victim who taken the part in the injury at the time, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the injury of the victim. 6) The Defendant was in a mental and physical state due to mental illness at the time of the instant case.

7 The failure of a defendant with mental illness to file a claim for medical treatment and custody is illegal.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In a case where it is deemed that the prosecutor voluntarily exercised the right of prosecution and gave substantial disadvantage to the defendant as to the allegation of abuse of the right of prosecution concerning mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, thereby significantly deviating from the right of prosecution.