A. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that prosecutor 1) mistake of fact (as to the violence), the structural power of plastic physical disease is separated from the pole, and the victim was trying to report in 112 while disputing the issue of money with the Defendant at the time of the physical disease, it is judged differently, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges of assault.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (as to assault)

A. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant did not consider the victim who extracted the upper part of the physical disease; and (b) the possibility that a physical disease would have taken place in the process of taking the physical disease as a hand, as alleged by the Defendant, cannot be ruled out; and (c) immediately after the victim met with the physical disease, the Defendant is not a part of the Defendant’s disease.

In light of the fact that the defendant intentionally continued to be said, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was in accordance with the victim's chest by causing the victim to be injured as described in the facts charged with assault, and that there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise, the court acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is a prosecutor's error of misconception of facts as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

It is not recognized.

Therefore, we cannot accept the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts.

3. We examine both the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion regarding unfair sentencing.

The lower court determined as follows.