A. In relation to the instant case No. 199, the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim, as described in each of the facts charged, with regard to misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) 2018 Highest 199.

However, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) Regarding the case No. 2018 Godan 482, the Defendant has brupted the victim, but the Defendant did not put the victim at the Rode, which is a dangerous object.

Although the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts [the reference materials and the reasons for appeal submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel on October 4, 2018 (Supplementary) indicated the case number “2018 order 3, but in light of the content of the assertion, it appears that the case “2018 order 482” was erroneous. (B) The Defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness at the time of each of the instant crimes.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the case No. 199 on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the legal doctrine.

In light of the records of this case, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the witness D, J's each legal statement, each photo, each written diagnosis, etc. of the court below, is sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged of this part.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

2) We examine the case No. 2018 Highest 482.

In light of the records of this case, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the defendant's legal statement in the court below, each police statement in D, and each part of the damaged body photo, etc., it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by making him panty as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.