A. In fact, the Defendant had not inflicted an injury on the victim to the same extent as the facts charged of this case, and even if so, there was a fact that such injury was inflicted.

Even if there were no risks to the life of the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged in the instant case, even though it did not cause danger to the life of the victim.

B. Although the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was physically and mentally weak due to the mental disorder, such as mental fissiona and alcohol existing symptoms at the time of the instant crime, the lower court erred by failing to reduce the physical and mental weakness.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence admitted by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts in its judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant had already asserted to the same effect as the argument of mental and physical weakness at the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion by the Defendant on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In light of the records of this case, the above determination by

The defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

(c)

In light of all the conditions of the argument and records of the instant case, including favorable circumstances, unfavorable circumstances, including the Defendant’s age character and character intelligence environment, relationship with the victim, motive means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

There is no reason to believe that the sentencing of the defendant is unfair.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendant’s appeal is groundless.