A. The Defendant is not aware of the victim’s threshold.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, recognizing the credibility of the testimony, after directly examining the victim and witness D, who was a witness.

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court’s judgment, it is reasonable that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there was no error by misapprehending the facts as alleged by the Defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

(1) The victim consistently fell from the criminal investigation agency to the court of the court of the court below while standing before the court of the court of the first instance.

“The lower court made the statement.”

② Social service personnel D, in the court of the court below, stated in the court below that “I am in front of the court room No. 21, and thus, the Defendant d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

“Pursuant to the above stated statement, the victim’s above statement is considerably consistent.”

③ As alleged by the Defendant, the part of the assault indicated in the facts charged of the instant case is “insect,” while the witness D considered that he was as soon as possible on the part of the victim’s “neck” at the court below.

was made a statement.

D, however, on the right side of the assault:

J. Har. Fr. Har. Har.

The author thought to be the object.

“The overall purport of the testimony is to be close to the spath or spath.