The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty was just a passive roots C, but there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged, the court below's judgment that convicted the defendant of this case is just and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

① There is a testimony of the victim C and E, who is a witness, as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case. In particular, in the case of E, a third party who has no direct interest with the defendant and the victim, and is not sufficient to doubt the credibility of the statement solely on the grounds of the circumstances alleged by the defendant.

② The Defendant did not deny the fact that there was a fighting disaster to a certain degree with the victim’s body, and the content of the 112 report as stated in the police’s on-site dispatch report is also written to the effect that “the male and female body fights and goes against the vision” (Evidence No. 23 pages). ③ At the time, the Defendant appears to have immediately been tryed to leave the scene of the instant crime. As such, the Defendant appears to have prevented the victim or other persons (the said 112 reporter among them) other than E (the trial record No. 26 pages), and if the Defendant took a passive defense as the Defendant’s assertion, it would have not been punished.

(4) There was a king of a collision between the left-hand side and the back-hand side of the victim.

However, in light of the background and method of the instant assault, the attitude of the injured party’s injury (refluences around the left-hand side) and so forth, etc.