All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (i) The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disability.

Dob. The sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In relation to the part of the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though it is acknowledged that the defendant inflicted an injury on the part of the victim'sO, which is a dangerous object of the victim'sO, by misunderstanding the facts and affected the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unfasible and unfair.

2. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is between the victim O and the defendant who had followed the desire from the defendant around 18:20 on September 24, 2014 and around 3 hours prior to the Nart in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, and that the defendant had expressed the desire from the defendant.

In this regard, the part of the victim's back water was cut up by 2 times by gathering a tree iron 2 cm (2 cm in diameter, 70 cm in length), which is a dangerous object that had been located there.

As a result, the Defendant carried a tree monm, which is a dangerous object, and inflicted injury on the victim, such as cerebral sins that need to be treated for about two weeks.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it could not be deemed that proof was given to the extent that there was evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Defendant was committed by the victim of a tree mons, such as the facts charged

① In the police investigation and prosecutorial investigation, the victim’sO stated that the Defendant took twice the head of the victim following the victim, and that the Defendant took the victim’s head. However, the victim’s memory, where the lower court deemed the victim to have turned back one time in the lower court’s trial, was faced with one more time in the instant case.