A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts (the point of serious injury) did not cause the victim’s head to go against the wall by force by pushing the victim’s head, as stated in this part of the facts charged. Moreover, mental disorders and visual disorders caused by permanent brain damage, etc. caused by the victim were caused by the victim’s spathnosis and did not have a relation to the Defendant’s act. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (4 years of the suspended sentence of two and a half years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is too uneasible to the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, on the grounds that this part of the grounds for appeal was identical to that of this part, and on the grounds that the lower court stated in the “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel”

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake as alleged by the defendant.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court with respect to each of the unfair arguments by the Defendant and the prosecutor, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions of the Defendant compared to the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and that there is no change in the sentencing conditions of the Defendant compared to the lower court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing revealed in the argument of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or too low.