A. Although the Defendant did not commit any assault against the victim, the lower court adopted the contaminated evidence, such as a victim’s medical certificate, medical record copy, X-ray photograph, and CT photograph, thereby pointing out facts on the basis thereof, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the degree of proof required in the criminal trial.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal doctrine by comparing the circumstances appropriately explained by the lower court with records and closely, it is recognized that the Defendant committed an assault and injury to the victim as stated in paragraph 2 of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the degree of proof required in the

In addition, merely because one diagnosis document does not contain any use or a copy of the diagnosis document and medical record can be prepared by computer, it cannot be said that a copy of the diagnosis document and medical record has been forged or has no probative value. As properly stated by the court below, X-ray photograph and CT photograph cannot be deemed as evidence contaminated. Thus, the evidence alone cannot be deemed as illegal evidence solely on the grounds asserted by the defendant.

There is no error in the lower court’s examination and adoption of evidence.

All Defendant’s arguments are rejected.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing.

Examining the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and changes, and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment, even if the Prosecutor considered all the circumstances asserted on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair on the ground that it was unhutiled and unreasonable.

We do not accept the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.

3. Thus, the conclusion is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.