A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of fact-finding, at least the defendant at the time when the defendant exercised force against the victim, dolusent intent about the result of injury is recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty (not guilty of the ground) of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (700,000 won) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case are considered: (i) the parts of the body part of the victim, the body part of the victim, the body part of the victim's body part of the victim, and the part of the victim's body part, etc., are substantially different; (ii) the defendant at the time, was plucking or plucking the part of the victim to cut his mobile phone from the victim; (iii) the degree of the physical part of the victim's body part of another body part of the victim's body was not much important to recognize the victim's intentional injury to the victim's other body part; and (iii) the defendant was unable to understand the occurrence of the above bodily part of the victim's body part of the victim's other body part at the time of the lower trial; and (iv) considering the fact that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone changed to the effect that it was difficult to understand that the above injury occurred by the defendant's act at the time of the lower trial.

For the reason that it is difficult to conclude this case’s charges (in the case of injury) as not guilty, the court below’s disposition is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. Illegal assertion of sentencing.