A. The lower court failed to take the same bath as the statement of the facts constituting the crime of mistake of facts.

B. It is not unlawful as it constitutes legitimate self-defense by setting up against illegal arrest and detention.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of all the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s wife appears to have insulting the H by taking advantage of the police officer’s h as stated in the lower judgment’s criminal facts, and the Defendant’s wife stated that the Defendant’s h did not take the Defendant’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s

(i) Each of the statements made by the victim H and police officers, I, is reliable in accordance with its specific and consistent manner.

Dor G makes a statement at an investigative agency that the defendant took a bath against a police officer, and the court below reversed the above statement that the defendant did not take a bath.

However, with respect to the preparation process of G in the original trial, “A written statement (10 pages of the Investigation Record)” (G, upon receipt of a written statement (the 15th page of the Investigation Record), was written by the police, but the above written statement was written by the police, so it seems that the statement about the written statement was written by the police) and it was reversed from time to time, and it was difficult to obtain the content of the statement as well as the other things within the police box of the preparation of the G’s written statement (the police officer’s cryping, etc.). However, in light of the fact that “A’s statement was written by the police, but the above written statement was written by the police, it appears that the statement was written by the police, and thus, it was written by G, and it is difficult to obtain the content of the statement.