A. (1) The Defendant is merely aware of the fact that the victim was not well able to see at the time of the instant case, and there was no misunderstanding of the victim with the intention to inflict the injury.

Shebly, even if not, the wife suffered by the victim is extremely minor and does not constitute an injury to the crime of injury.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances: ① The victim, who is the passenger of the taxi at the time of the instant case, was in dispute with the defendant, who was a taxi engineer, and left the taxi; ② immediately after that, the defendant started the victim who was walking in the future and brought about the damaged person; ③ viewed the victim as the scene image at the time, ③ the other objects were not in a situation where the defendant could not be seen as the victim because other objects were in the view of the defendant’s view at the scene, etc., the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he received the victim’s bridge with the intent to injure the victim, so this part of the defendant’s assertion is without merit.

The injury diagnosis submitted by the victim of the crime of injury whether she was injured or not is the body of the victim. In general, it is insufficient to provide evidence to prove the fact that the injury as described above was directly caused by the defendant's act, since the doctor has identified the cause of injury based on the victim's statement and stated the part and degree of injury by mobilization of medical professional knowledge.

However, the date of diagnosis of the injury and the date of preparation of the injury diagnosis report are close to the time and time of the injury and the injury diagnosis report.