A. The Defendant in mistake of facts reported that the victim E was able to kill the Defendant’s husband, and told the victim only, and did not inflict an injury on the victim as in the instant facts charged.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The witness F and G of the lower court consistently held that the Defendant exceeded the slicker from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court’s trial. The witness F and G of the lower court stated that they were the victims.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below including each of the above statements, the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case can be fully recognized.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law.

B. The Defendant has no record of criminal punishment, other than once sentenced to a fine in 1985, on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

The crime of this case refers to the time when the victim was the husband of the defendant, and it is considered that the defendant was punished while the defendant was the victim.

However, the defendant exceeded the slurier that was reported by the victim, and the victim did not suffer damage due to the injury such as climatic salt, etc. for three weeks of treatment.

Until the trial, the defendant did not agree with the victim.

In addition, considering the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc. of the defendant and all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.