A. The Defendant did not have exercised the tangible power against the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judge’s determination of the probative value of the evidence as to the assertion of mistake of facts shall conform to logical and empirical rules, and the degree of formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial shall be such that there is no reasonable doubt. However, this is not required to the extent that all possible doubts are excluded, and rejection of the evidence recognized as having probative value exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

The term “reasonable doubt” refers to a reasonable doubt based on logical and empirical rules as to the probability of a fact that is not compatible with the facts, rather than all questions and correspondences, and the suspicion based on conceptual suspicion or abstract possibility cannot be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts, such as the Defendant’s assertion, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, since it can sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant inflicted bodily injury upon the victim by exercising force as stated in the facts charged.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Defendant is the instant case.