The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant was the victim and the victim were flicker in front of the Defendant’s deaf-do, and was flicker in the process of cutting down the victim’s flick, and exceeded the floor, but there was no fact that the victim got back to the flicker of the victim who was in the vicinity, and then the victim was found to have flicked the victim’s blick, and the face side was flicker up to the floor. 2) The Defendant was unaware of the circumstances that the victim was crashed before about 20 years of falling, and was under the pressure of the flickeral flicker. Thus, it was impossible to anticipate the result of serious injury, i.e. the fl

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant argued that the defendant had flabbbbage of the victim in front of the victim's scam and had the face faced with the floor, and the defendant also argued to the same effect as the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in this part, and the court below rejected the defendant's above assertion on the following grounds: according to the victim's and witness D's statements in each court below, the defendant can be recognized as having found the victim who had performed his/her duty to return to the victim's scam and take a bath; he/she can flabbbage in one hand; he/she flabbbage in another hand; and flabs in the direction that the victim's blabs adjoins the ground. The court below's above determination is just. The victim's wife made a consistent witness statement from an investigative agency to the court below.

The content is 10 minutes after the victim's face part of the victim's face at the time of drinking alcohol and the victim's face at this time.