A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) 1, the purpose of retaliation for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not at issue, but at the same time, it is not at issue whether the other purpose exists and any of them is main purpose. The recognition of the purpose of retaliation is sufficient with dolusence, and the recognition of the purpose is sufficient. As the defendant sought a restaurant operated by the victim H on the day when the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim H, the defendant attempted to assault the victim H while making the statement that “N was receiving a suspended sentence due to a mistake of the witness, and became a criminal suspect after receiving a suspended sentence of execution.” In light of the above, at the time of the defendant's injury to the victim H on the same day, the victim H made a statement unfavorable to an investigative agency in connection with a criminal case against the defendant.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. Since the burden of proof on the facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof as to the facts that constitute the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of retaliation against the offender of the crime committed in violation of Article 5-9 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Also, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that such proof is based on a strict proof that makes the judge feel no reasonable doubt,

However, as long as there is no confession of the defendant, whether there was the purpose of retaliation against the defendant shall be the victim who was the object of retaliation, such as personal relationship with the victim, provision of proviso to investigation, etc.