A. The Defendant committed the act of the victim who seeks to open a lid which is likely to cause a lid, and the Defendant did not cause the victim to be able to lid the lid in the future by intentionally block of the victim who would injure the victim, such as the facts charged in the instant case, by intentionally block of the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument of mistake of facts. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim intentionally made a statement to the effect that the victim was in front of the victim in the situation where the body was saved by opening the lid which was the date and time indicated in the facts charged in this case at an investigative agency, ② the witness of this case at that time made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that the victim was in front of the victim, ② the witness of this case also made a statement with the same contents as the victim’s above. In particular, the victim made a statement to the victim at the time when the victim would go beyond the victim’s future. ③ Even according to the victim’s photograph (see, e.g., evidence recording 31 through 33) by cutting the CCTV video images taken in front of the scene at the time of this case’s occurrence, as described in the facts charged in this case, it is hard to see that the victim was in front of the victim’s behavior, and that there was an intentional injury beyond the victim’s act.