A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not sell the part of the victim’s injury (i.e., cos) to drink, and the victim suffered injury while exceeding the floor of the victim intended to assault the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of injury, and there is no causal relationship between the defendant's act and the victim's injury.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the Defendant suffered injury, such as the victim’s batfeing and cutting down the bat at the victim’s face by drinking.

In light of the nature and form of the crime, and the degree and degree of the injury, at least the Defendant had dolusence of the injury.

full recognition may be accepted.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

1) The Defendant, while driving, exchanged the victim’s child during his/her own car with his/her desire on the day of the traffic accident, during which the victim’s child was crypted, and the victim was able to challenge the victim in front of his/her vehicle getting off from the driver’s seat on the side of the Defendant.

2) The victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the lower court that “the Defendant prices the face of the victim as a drink.”

The details of the statements made by victims on the background, process, and conditions before and after the crime are consistent with specific and objective evidence.

Unlike the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the victim's statement was clearly erroneous.

There are no objective data to acknowledge that the victims’ statements were objectively reliable in light of special circumstances or the victims’ statements.

3) The witness G of the lower court also stated that “at the time of the instant case, he observed the situation immediately next, and the Defendant prices the face of the victim by extending to drinking.”