A. Defendant 1) With regard to the facts charged of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there was no fact that the victim D, E face, head, side fry, or fry was committed by drinking, and there was no fact that the victim G was committed by drinking. In addition, the upper part of the judgment of the court of unfair sentencing (one year and two months) of the victim’s judgment is unreasonable because the victim’s assault against the victim J was committed by flap in the process of blaging the Defendant’s desire while G was flaging, and blaging the drinking and drinking, and the Defendant was flaged by the Defendant’s hand flap in the process of blaging the two descendants, and the assault against the victim J was committed by the Defendant to defend the said victim first by the wind that the said victim was flag.

B. The lower court’s sentence is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the victim D, E, and G have consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below as to the background, contents, and the situation at the time of the assault, etc., in full view of the following facts: (a) the victim D, E, and G has consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below; (b) the victim’s appearance, eye, snow, and see, etc. immediately after the instant crime was committed in this case; (c) the right eye is open to the right eye; and (d) the defendant was at the time when G faces the face at the time of the commission of the crime; and (e) the defendant appears to have been at the time of the crime in this process, and thus, (e) the victimJ could not be recognized as self-defense; and therefore

B. The Defendant already has the ability to punish several times of punishment due to an act of violence, and among which the sentence is imposed five times of imprisonment.

Nevertheless, the defendant committed the crime of this case again during the period of repeated crime.

Moreover, the instant case was made on the 2013.