The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the statements and circumstantial evidence by the Defendant A at the prosecutor, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charge, misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant had inflicted an injury on the knife of the Defendant A with a wooden salted fish, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant A initially asserted a misunderstanding of facts that “the Defendant did not have any price due to an illness,” but withdrawn the said assertion on the second day of the trial of the first instance.

(1) At the time of the crime of this case, Defendant A was in a state of mental suffering from mental suffering.

Dob. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On June 12, 2013, at the H parking lot located in Nam-gu, Busan around 20:20, the summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged: (a) caused the Defendant A to go out of the Defendant B, on the ground that the Defendant her talked at the above singing room; (b) caused the Defendant’s head to tear, which is a product dangerous to the Defendant B; (c) caused the Defendant’s chest to tear; and (d) caused the Defendant’s injury, such as the 6,7 lup at 6, and 7 lups of the Defendant’s chest, following the Defendant’s act above the Defendant A’s chest, and the Defendant her flicked the flup of the Defendant A’s flup, which was prepared in advance, and caused the Defendant A’s flish to tear the flish of the Defendant A’s flup.

B. The judgment of the court below is based on the premise that the evidence consistent with the above facts charged lies in A’s statement at the investigative agency and this court, and there is a photo of A’s injury. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant A, among the defendant B, who had a Dominium and alcohol in Fnominium room, made a speech to the defendant who had a higher age than his age, and accordingly, there was a little dispute between the defendant and A.