A. The Defendant asserts that, at the time of committing the crime, the lower court’s determination that recognized it was unreasonable, even if the Defendant did not assault or assault the victim, because he was suffering from the private retail post-retailers without a money, and the blade’s length could not have been kept at his upper end, and the lower court’s determination that recognized it was unreasonable.

The following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of original judgment, namely, (i) it is difficult to view that there was any inconvenience for the Defendant to carry excessive charges as the excessive charges were covered by the Defendant’s residence on the day of the crime; (ii) the victim, as stated in detail by the court below, immediately after the victim was damaged, and immediately after the police investigation to the court below, stated consistently that the Defendant carried excessive charges at the time of the crime; and (iii) the Defendant, at the prosecutor’s office, forced the victim to take hand on one hand at the time of the crime, from the entrance of the party headquarters building at the scene of the crime of this case, and forced the victim to take the stairs from the entrance of the party headquarters building at the scene of the crime of this case. During this process, the victim did not expect or take care of the victim while resisting the victim, and the Defendant did not resist him by carrying the deadly weapons beyond the victim; and (iv) the victim’s resistance to use it excessively as evidence during the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel are above.