A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, erred in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine that recognized that Co-Defendant E, a mother of the Defendant, committed an assault against the victim jointly even though he did not have committed an assault against the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below regarding the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts are met with the victim's statement: ① The victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, stated that the victim met the victim's boom E in order to leave the rooftop door to the scene of the apartment rooftop construction; ② the witness G, from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court of the court below, stated that the victim met the victim's statement; ③ the victim's statement that E was at the time of the victim's shock; ③ the witness F, the investigative agency, also considered that E was at the time of the victim's breathm, and corresponds with the victim's statement ( even though the F stated in the court of the court of the court below, the crime of this case occurred on September 3, 2013; ② the testimony of F was sufficiently hard to recognize that the victim was a bread witness with the victim's motive for committing the crime of this case after the lapse of one year thereafter.

(b).