A. Prosecutor 1) In misunderstanding the facts, or misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant assaulted the victim F’s face face, and even thereafter, the Defendant committed an injury, such as she was aware of, and she was aware of, the above victim by assaulting the victim B. Thus, the Defendant’s crime should be subject to the same exception

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of injury and found the Defendant guilty of only the violence, which is a reduced fact, erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2) The sentence (1.5 million won in penalty) imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneased and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On September 19, 2016, the summary of the public prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, 1) the Defendant, in front of the E-cafeteria located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, the Defendant called the victim F (n, 21 years old) who was aware of the fact that he/she had a tobacco heart on his/her friendship, was the victim’s tree, and the victim, who was found to have a fluor, was found to be the place where the Defendant was located in order to comply with this.

The Defendant used assaulting the victim to take the head debt of the victim on his hand on the ground that the victim was in conflict with the victim for the said reasons at the above date, time, place, and on the ground that the victim was in conflict with the victim for the said reasons, and had the victim go beyond the floor in the process, and then went beyond the victim's face on the part of the victim, and used the victim to take approximately 6 weeks of treatment, such as taking the victim's face and taking the face above, and put the victim on the inside side and side of the left side.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court did not reasonably doubt that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone led to the Defendant to have taken the victim’s face or suffered bodily injury, such as the victim’s know-how and breath.