A. In relation to the point of a misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant did not assault the Victim J (hereinafter “victim”).

In relation to the point of damage to public goods, the defendant was actually used at the time, but did not intentionally go over the chemical part.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the crime of injury and damage to public goods is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, first of all, we examine the argument that the defendant did not assault the victim.

The court below stated that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below (i.e., (i) K and H consistently made a statement from an investigative agency to the court of the court below that the defendant abused the victim by drinking and selling; (ii) L also made a statement at an investigative agency that the defendant abused the victim by drinking and selling; (iii) there is no reason to make a false statement because the defendant was a third party unrelated to this case as an acting driver at the time, and (iv) there is no reason to make a false statement unfavorable to the defendant; (iii) the first investigative agency made a statement that the defendant was arrested by the victim, and was arrested by the police at the time of the first investigation agency. The court of the court of the court below made a statement that the defendant was against the victim to the degree of cutting off or pushing down the victim's arms. In the statement of reasons for appeal submitted on July 25, 2014, the court below made a statement that the victim was above the floor of the court below, but that the defendant did not appear to be the victim and Q Q.