A. Although the Defendant had not inflicted injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges.

B. In order for the victim of legal principles to catch the Defendant’s breath, the Defendant’s hand was used to defend the Defendant’s breath, and the Defendant’s hand was merely the victim’s hand.

The defendant's act does not constitute a crime because it constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant made the same assertion in the trial of the lower court, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, acknowledged the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury in the process of breathing the victim’s fat, and destroying the fat.

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it does not contain any error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as self-defense or legitimate act in full view of the motive and circumstance of the instant crime committed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the method and degree of force of the Defendant’s use of force, etc. As such, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The victim’s parents are referred to as “the victim’s parents to agree on the assertion of unfair sentencing.”