A. Although the Defendant did not have a fact that he had a vinyl which contains sulfuric acid as stated in the facts charged, he had a misunderstanding of the fact about the victim’s head, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (Confiscation of two years of imprisonment, Nos. 1 and 2) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that, in light of the records of the instant case, the Defendant’s assertion is justifiable and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the facts charged, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, (i) the Defendant was making a malicious testimony to the victim due to the settlement of the vessel price; (ii) the Defendant was able to find the victim’s residence in a plastic finite to the Defendant’s dwelling; (iii) the victim’s statement as to the circumstances of the instant case; (iv) the video cins of the victim’s body; and (iv) the yellow fins of this case’s body remaining in the yellow fins where the victim’s body had been punished; and (iii) it is difficult for the police to view that the Defendant was conducting a finite investigation, such as the Defendant’s assertion, in light of the investigation process of the instant case, there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged by the lower court.

The Defendant: (a) the Defendant laid a plastic paper in which the victim was lute acid, and laid a plastic paper, and caused images to the victim by scattering yellow acid, which was in plastic paper, during that process; and (b) yellow acid, which was flown over the victim and flown on the floor, was asked to the victim, etc.; and (c) video was generated to the victim, etc.