A. In other words, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, nor did the Defendant inflict an injury on the victim.

The assault with the victim by the defendant is a whole that flicker fights on the face of the victim by using the victim's face at one time after one price.

In this case, the defendant conspired with B, C, or recognized and used the assault against the victim B, B, or C.

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, the defendant's statement that sexual harassments on the victim's daily behaviors does not cause a trial expense. In addition, the victim's trial expense was first started by misunderstanding the situation at the time of the victim's daily behaviors.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles (in particular, the video of black booms and CCTV for crime prevention), the following facts are found: (a) the defendant 1 met with the victim who was going through the above road and the victim who continued to have assaulted on the part of the victim beyond the above floor, while talking in G singing at the front of G singing; (b) the victim she was parked after the defendant's daily behaviors, and was on board the vehicle; (c) the defendant Had the vehicle; and (d) the defendant Had the victim's face taken by the vehicle; and (e) the victim she was sent to the vehicle; and (e) the victim she was able to find the fact that the victim she continued to have assaulted on the part of the victim beyond the floor as above; and (e) the fact that the defendant she continued to do so in the situation where the victim she was on the part of the victim.

As such, the defendant.