2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

3. As to the acquittal portion of the lower judgment.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the facts-misunderstanding and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, it is recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim with pipes of plastic materials, such as as written in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2) The above sentence committed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, on the grounds of the detailed circumstances in the item “non-crimes” of the judgment, and on the basis of which the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was either attributable to the Defendant’s assault by the Defendant, or that the Defendant assaulted F on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor was either due to the Defendant’s assault.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is insufficient to conclude it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

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

B. The instant crime of determining the illegality of sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor was committed by taking advantage of the victim’s disability condition, which is about 10 months between the victim, who was a intellectual disabled person, and obtained pecuniary benefits by making the victim work on the pigs farm and not paying any reasonable remuneration. The crime requires strict punishment due to very poor nature of the crime. The Defendant made a vindication that the Defendant cannot obtain in the process of the instant investigation and the lower court’s trial, and received a confirmation of facts favorable to himself.