A. In fact, the Defendant did not pose a threat to the victim G with her beer’s disease, and there was only an assault against the victim D, and there was no injury.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant may threaten the victim G and F with beerer, and recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim D, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is rejected.

① At the investigation stage, G was a customer who had been visited by the Defendant even before the lower court to the lower court’s trial, and as a result, D, who was under the influence of alcohol and was in contact with F, was assaulted by the Defendant first, and was in contact with the Defendant.

As the above statement is made, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case can be consistently explained in a concrete and reliable manner.

(2) D is under contact with F at the investigation stage up to the original trial court’s court at the investigation stage, and the defendant takes a bath to G and F, and thus, the defendant first commits assaulting the defendant and wraped it.

As the statement is being made, the above statement is not only specifically explaining the circumstances leading to the instant crime, but also includes the contents that it first assaulted the Defendant, consistent with the G's statement, and includes the contents that it first assaulted the Defendant.

③ On the other hand, the Defendant first brought about a dispute with G or F.

However, there is a fact that the police officer later asked G and F whether he was satisfyed by G and F, and that there is such fact.

Statements are not consistent.

B. The injury inflicted by the illegal defendant D in sentencing seems to be relatively minor, and D does not want to be punished against the defendant in the original court.