A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, did not support the victim who was locked by finding the victim’s accommodation.

Even so, the court below held that the defendant injured the victim.

As such, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: ① the victim has made a consistent and concrete statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below on the background and form of the injury inflicted by the defendant; ② the victim in the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below urged the defendant to pay money because the victim had to receive money from the defendant.

Miscellaneously, the victim has given up his/her money and would no longer be the other party.

As stated above, the Defendant stated to the effect that he assaulted the victim of the instant case. On March 18, 2016, the preceding day of the instant case, the Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that on March 18, 2016, the victim sought the Defendant and again demanded the Defendant to repay money that he had already been repaid (in accordance with the investigation record), and that the Defendant and the victim’s statement on the motive of the instant crime correspond to a considerable portion, and ③ the victim clearly expressed the Defendant as the perpetrator when he reported to the police on the new wall on the day of the instant assault, as stated in the judgment of the court below, the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim can be recognized, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the Defendant is living alone in the place where it is economically difficult.