A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, on April 12, 2012, alleged the victim’s and coffee issues, but did not see that he/she had inflicted an injury on the victim, such as dystyprying stypry, by advertising the victim.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In full view of the following: (a) a person who misleads the victim of facts (not guilty part) consistently and specifically states the fact of damage; (b) a written diagnosis of injury supporting the victim’s statement; (c) a photograph of the criminal implements; and (d) an on-site photograph of the case, etc., the fact of assaulting or injuring the victim at the time of the victim; and (d) a

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted each of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of various circumstances as indicated in the judgment below in the part below “a summary of evidence.”

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s acknowledgement and determination of facts is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In particular, the defendant has a dispute over the problem of the coffee at the time in the investigative agency.

“Pursuant to each injury’s pictures, it is confirmed that the victim’s arms, legs, bridges, chests, vegetables, etc. are attributable to the victim.

(Evidence Records 15 to 18) The above photographs are the framework after the assault of this case.