A. Error 1) The instant case occurred before September 10:14, 2017. 2) At the time of the instant case, the Victim Network D (hereinafter “victim”) was fluorily and boomed with the Defendant, and the Defendant was in contact with the Defendant’s hand, hand, hand, hand, hand, and hand, etc. during the process of the Defendant’s defense by hand, there was a fact that the Defendant was fluor of the ppuri, and the Defendant was fluord with the Defendant’s hand, hand, hand, and hand, etc. on the floor, and did not cause the Defendant to go beyond the floor by pushing the victim.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant cannot be found to have committed an injury because he did not intend to inflict an injury on the victim.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant had had the victim go beyond the victim's upper floor, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the victim stated in the police investigation conducted on September 25, 2017 to the effect that the defendant was able to have a bridge because he was tight (Evidence 19 pages), ii the defendant stated to the effect that he had the victim tried to go against her child in the course of communicating with M on September 22, 2017 (Evidence 61 pages), and the court below stated to the effect that the victim was tight during the fifth trial date (Evidence 124 pages of the trial record, ③ the witness E did not have any physical contact between the defendant and the victim at the court of the court below. However, the court below did not reverse the credibility of the defendant's statement by taking account of the fact that the defendant was not able to have a victim, and the defendant did not make a statement again again.