A. In regard to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (in relation to injury), the Defendant was merely the floor of the so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called the so-called so-called so-called “so-called so-called scopical injury” for the purpose of defense to prevent the victims from coming to himself, and there was no fact that the victim E was dismissed from the so-called 's so-called 's so-called 's so-called 's so-called 's so-called '

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol.

C. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is recognized that the defendant unilaterally committed an assault against the victim C, D, etc. while under the influence of alcohol, and was faced with the victim C, and the victim E was prevented from suffering an injury on the hand floor, and that the defendant voluntarily stated that there was no assault from the victims.

In light of the above, we affirm that the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the defendant's injury is just, and we cannot accept all the defendant's assertion that the court below merely puts the So-called So-called So-called So-young's view on the floor or defends the victims from the attack.

In addition, if the defendant suffered an injury due to the victim E's loss that he/she had attempted to prevent the victim from causing the injury to the victim C, the intent of the injury to the victim E is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1745, Oct. 26, 1987). Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

B. According to the records on the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant committed the crime of this case.