A. In fact, the Defendant was guilty on the charge of misunderstanding the facts of this case by misunderstanding the facts, even though he did not look at the victim’s head by carrying a movement device, which is a dangerous object, such as this case’s facts charged.

B. The Defendant guilty of all or part of the facts charged in the instant case.

Even if the court below's sentence (5 million won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. On the grounds delineated below, the court below's finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and there is no error of misconception of facts.

1) On May 9, 2016, the police officer’s “at the time of the first investigation as to whether the victim carried dangerous things,” which is the core part of the instant case, assaulted the statement person using dangerous things.

The term “I ambling, fating, and drinking” for the question “I ambling.”

“The Defendant, upon receiving the second investigation on May 31, 2016, reversed it, and the Defendant satisdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddg

The statement is recognized.

2) However, the court of first instance held that ① the victim made a statement to the same purport as the second police statement, ② the victim’s police officer’s statement to the effect that “the first instance did not make a correct statement with respect to the demand of superior and the staff members, etc. of the party headquarters at the request of his superior and the staff members of the party headquarters” did not appear unreasonable in the court of the court below’s legal statement, and that there is a person who was a union-related relationship of the original party and was left before the arbitration immediately after the occurrence of the case for the settlement of the case.