A. The lower court found Defendant A1 guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case, although the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the legal doctrine, although Defendant A did not see or dump the fat of the victim (Defendant B)’s dump, and the fact that Defendant A did not fump the victim’s arms within the F rice farm, which was aimed at preventing the victim from suffering from dumbling and fumbing the fume, and thereby, constituted a justifiable act.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the argument of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles of Defendant A is as follows. ① The victim consistently stated at the police to the effect that Defendant A was scam scam and scambling the victim's scam, and damaged the victim's scam beyond the bottom, as stated in the facts charged. ② The scam G appears in the police as the male and female scam scam in the victim's hand, so the two parties were scamed by Defendant A's hand, the victim was scambling, the victim was scambling, and the Defendant A's shoulder was scambling the victim's shoulder at the time of exercising the victim's scam, and the victim was scambling the victim's scam, and the victim was scambling the victim's scam to the left side at the time of exercising the victim's scam.