The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not assault the victim by misunderstanding of facts. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on unreasonable sentencing (2) the lower court’s sentence (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that: (a) the victim appeared at the police at one hour after the commission of the crime, and made statements; (b) the time interval between the date and time of the damage; (c) the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime are shorter; (d) the investigative agency made a statement at the time of the crime to the court below; (c) the credibility of the statement is high; (e) the Defendant and the Defendant’s G arrives at the scene of the crime; and (e) the sound recording, which leads to dispute with the victim; and (c) the Defendant appears to have committed the act of assault as stated in the facts charged in the instant case; (c) the victim’s statement that the Defendant first arrived before and after the commission of the crime, does not coincide with the Defendant; (d) the victim’s statement on the immediately before and after the commission of the crime from the Defendant was consistent with the above sound recording; and (e) the victim’s statement was not consistent with the victim’s witness’s testimony at the scene.

Since the statement on the part has been changed continuously, it is difficult to believe, and F has arrived at the site after the commission of the crime.