A. The Defendant, who was actually aware of the fact, was assaulted by C, and thus, did not err by misapprehending C.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “the determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment of the court below on the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence, the court below’s determination is sufficiently acceptable and acceptable, and contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, there were errors in matters of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

(1) A witness of the instant case

F is a person who does not have any means to do so with a defendant or C, and there is no motive or reason to make a false statement unfavorable to the defendant, and the credibility of the statement is very high by making a very specific and consistent statement from an investigative agency to the court of the original trial on the circumstances at the time.

I would like to say.

F There is no fact that “C is involved in the Defendant.”

C and the Defendant consistently made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant was given a sudden knick, knife and followed a sound before a taxi stop.”

(2) Although the written diagnosis of injury submitted by the Defendant to an investigative agency states that “the inner and voltages shall be observed around the chest chain, and the movement of the police are insignificantly restricted,” it refers to the part surrounding the chest chain of the Masul Masul Masul Masul, which is the part leading to the upper part of the Defendant’s assault, which is, the upper part of the Defendant’s consistently asserted.