A. Although the Defendant, as a result of the instant case’s parking and the victim did not have any dispute with each other, the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ground that the Defendant did not have any other side of the victim’s head, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won in penalty) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the victim has consistently made a statement to the effect that he was faced with this part by the defendant as shown in the facts charged up to the court of the court below, ② according to the victim’s 112 report on the day of the instant case, according to the victim’s 112 report on the day of the instant case, the victim appears to have been reported to the police at the time of the instant case, ③ the Defendant’s head cannot receive the victim’s objection due to his own head due to the difference with the victim’s key. However, according to the victim’s statement in the court of the court below, it is possible for the victim to take the part of the victim’s head as the victim’s head because of the difference, and even

In light of the fact that it is not impossible for the defendant to take the part of the victim due to his head according to the distance between the defendant and the victim at the time and the physical topography, etc., the decision of the court below that found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts alleged by the defendant as alleged in the facts charged of this case.

B. The degree of assault of the instant case is heavy as to the wrongful argument of sentencing.

No. 3.