A. The Defendant did not commit an injury by assaulting the victim D, such as the facts charged in the instant case.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (nine months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the various evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts (in particular, the police statement of D), the defendant can sufficiently be recognized that the defendant inflicted injury on the victim, such as the victim's face face at least four weeks of medical treatment as stated in the facts charged in this case, by making the victim take the face part of D, and by making the victim take the part of the victim take the part of the victim's face at least four weeks of medical treatment. Thus, this part of the defendant and his

B. It is true that there are various circumstances that can be considered for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant's judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing seems to have caused the crime of this case in a contingency by drinking, the age of the defendant, the fact that the defendant lives a married person without family as well as his/her age, and the defendant's health status seems not good.

However, not only has the history of punishment several times for violent crimes, but also the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the obstruction of performance of official duties by the Gwangju District Court on April 6, 201 and was sentenced to six months on June 21, 201 by the Gwangju District Court on the completion of the execution of the sentence in the Gwangju Prison on June 21, 2011, and again committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period, and even though the degree of injury of the victim is not less than that of the victim, it did not reach an agreement with the victim because it did not recover from damage to the victim, and the court below was determined by considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant.