A. Defendant 1) In fact, Defendant 1 was faced with the victim’s head, and the victim’s injury, such as blood transfusion, etc., was caused by the victim’s left-hand urology, and was not related to the Defendant’s act, the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the facts charged on the ground of G’s statement without credibility.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim can be found to have suffered injury to the left-hand free body due to the shock that occurred at the time of the Defendant’s act of assault in this case under the high risk of suffering from the free-hand eye due to the combination of urology. As such, even in a case where the victim contributed to the occurrence of the result of the victim’s occurrence of a specific injury or the prolongedization of treatment period due to the aggravation of urology in competition with the Defendant’s assault, the victim’s assault and the victim’s injury are deemed to exist.

1) According to CCTV images taken by the site of this case, the victim suffered damage to the body door of the Defendant, duplicing the body door of the victim, towing out of the office, and then moving out to the outside of the office, and left away from the control of the police officers who were reported at the time. In other words, the victim was placed on the front side of the front door of the office entrance and the front door of the victim who duped on the front side of the victim, who duped the front side of the victim, was the head of the Defendant. If the victim dupliced the front side of the victim, then the victim was the head of the victim, who duped against the victim, and was the victim.