A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.

A. The misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles that the defendant inflicted an assault on the first-aid crew C is a reflective riot that had taken place in the state of consciousness, and the defendant did not have an intention to commit this crime.

B. The Defendant, at the time of this case, was physically and mentally weak and physically weak.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty by taking full account of the evidence indicated in its judgment.

2) The lower court duly admitted and examined the following circumstances: ① According to CCTV images containing the first-aid vehicle security situation (see, e.g., evidence records 27 pages); the Defendant stated that “The Defendant had assaulted the Defendant, including the Defendant’s act of assault, under the perception that the Defendant had been hospitalized, during the first-aid service and was under the awareness that the Defendant had been hospitalized (see, e.g., Evidence 00:26:26:0:26:26:45), and that the Defendant had been aware of the Defendant’s act of assaulting the first-aid vehicle crew; ② the Defendant had been aware that the Defendant had been hospitalized in the first-aid service at the time; ② the Defendant had been under the awareness that the Defendant had been hospitalized in the first-aid service; ③ the Defendant had been under the awareness that the Defendant had already been hospitalized; and ③ the Defendant had been under the awareness that the Defendant had already been hospitalized.”

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case does not err by misapprehending the legal principles.

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.