A. Since there was no fact that the victim's face was exposed, and since the victim was suffering from satch originally, there was no causal relationship between the Defendant's assault and injury.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two million won by fine) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged in this case are fully convicted in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) the defendant stated that he was at the time of the victim's head at the time of the investigation process (Evidence No. 27 of the Record); (b) the victim was hospitalized at the hospital immediately after having been abused by the defendant on September 10, 2012; and (c) the victim submitted a written complaint on September 12, 2012; (d) the victim stated that the defendant was frighting to the head, chest, and face; and (e) the victim stated that he was frighting to the victim's head, chest, and face; and (e) the part and degree of the injury as stated in the written diagnosis of injury submitted by the victim (Evidence No. 5, 6 of the Record of Evidence); and (e) the victim was suffering from chronic infection

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s primary offender without any previous conviction; and (b) the victim suffers from pump infection and the damage seems to have been further expanded; (c) the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was forced to leave from the victim’s home; and (d) the Defendant did not take any follow-up measures, such as leaving the victim at the victim’s home; (b) the Defendant did not agree with the victim and did not move the victim to the hospital; and (c) the Defendant did not agree with the victim; and (d) other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the motive, means and methods of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence cannot

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.