A. Fact mistake: The Defendant did not commit violence against the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. Improper sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the lower court had the same purport as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned argument based on the summary of the evidence of the judgment.

The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (1) the victim appeared and testified in the court of the court below after about 11 months have elapsed since the victim suffered the same damage as the stated in the facts charged in this case, and even if the victim made a statement in the court of the court of the court below, it can be viewed as a natural memory loss due to time flow, and such circumstance does not seem to be a critical reason for enhancing the credibility of the victim's statement. (2) In addition, the crime of the defendant is committed by the victim as the victim was done in the process of demanding the alcohol value, and it seems difficult for the victim to accurately memory the whole contents of the victim's specific assault. (3) The changed statement in the court of the court of the court below is not a change disadvantageous to the defendant, and (4) the part that the victim stated that the victim "no more than the truth" in the court of the court of the court below is contradictory to the defendant's defense counsel's statement in the court of the court of the court below.

The question, that is, the defendant does not go beyond the defendant's assault, but in the process of preventing the victim from committing the defendant.