Costs of trial in the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's defense counsel argues that in the additional statement of grounds for appeal filed on September 9, 2020 after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal, the defendant's defense counsel dismissed the victim's head as a legitimate act, and on different premise, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. However, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal due to the defendant's assertion after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal, and even if ex officio is examined, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act as stated in the facts charged cannot be seen as a legitimate act

As stated in the facts charged, the defendant does not have the fact that he was at the time of the victim's her head and her head due to his hand, and each statement made by the victim, D, E, F, and G that seems to conform to the facts charged is not reliable.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on a different premise, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

The lower court, on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, explained in detail the grounds for the “3... judgment” under the title of the “decision on the Defendant’s and defense counsel’s assertion” in the lower judgment, and explained in detail the following. ① The victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, made a conversation with other prisoners who have been outside of the prison room by blocking the door of the prison room, was “on the job,” and the victim, who was faced with the conversation, was on the floor of his head and her knife who was unfolded since the examination that the Defendant, who was in the course of conversation, was called the “Isra,”

The facts charged in this case are consistent with the facts charged in this case and the situation before and after.