A. The Defendant does not have any means to use physical evidence against the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the

① The victim stated in the investigative agency that “the Defendant was frightening his arms, making them a hole in his arms, and the Defendant was frighted by cutting the Defendant’s left arms.” (No. 20, 41, and 42 of the investigation record) and the lower court testified that “the Defendant was frighting his arms, and frighted” in the court of the lower trial.

(33,35 pages). (2) On-site CCTV images (CH5, 00, 57 seconds to 01 minute 10 seconds), the Defendant appears to have a knife the victim, and the “damage of the arms above the left side” as stated in the medical certificate submitted by the victim also conforms to the victim’s statement.

(54 pages 54 of the investigation record). 3. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing; and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant is the primary offender.

However, the records and arguments of this case, including the fact that the defendant denies and does not reflect the crime, that the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim, that there is no change in circumstances that could reduce the sentence of the court below, and that the defendant caused the crime of this case.