A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though there was a fact that the victim had been her blicked several times, but the defendant did not assault the victim due to beer's disease, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The sentence of one and a half years of imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake, i.e., (i) the victim made a consistent statement at the investigative agency to the effect that he suffered violence against the defendant due to beer disease (the victim was in the court of the court below and stated to the effect that he did not memory with his head due to beer disease; (ii) the victim reversed the statement at the investigative agency to the same purport after the victim agreed with the defendant; (iii) the victim did not appear to be be be be beer disease first when he testified at the court of the court below; and (iv) the investigative agency has again made a statement to the effect that his memory was unclear, but the court of the court below did not clearly state the situation at the time when he made a statement that his memory was unknown, and (iv) the victim did not reply to the victim's 1 to the victim's body during the examination of the victim's head on September 15, 2012 (the victim's 1).