A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not assault the victims, and committed an assault.

Although it constitutes a legitimate act, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion, such as misunderstanding of facts, i.e., the victims, consistently at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court, consistently held that the Defendant got the victim B’s fingers and got the victim A.

The statement, ② the defendant also considered that he was under the victim A's entrance in the investigative agency at the time of the instant case.

(3) In light of the fact that the police officer dispatched at the time of the instant case prepared a report of investigation with the content that he was faced with the victim B’s fingers and the victim’s ging part in the ging part, etc., the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of assaulting the victims as stated in the judgment of the court below. In light of the degree of assault by the victims, the above defendant’s act does not constitute a justifiable act as not only the reasonableness of the means, but also the balance or supplement of legal interests. Thus, the above assertion

B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing is an initial criminal without any criminal history, and there are circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant crime.

However, considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is too too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is not reasonable. In so doing, it is not reasonable to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion.