The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (in the case of injury), there was no intention to commit a crime since the defendant did not anticipate that the victim would suffer an injury.

B. At the time of each of the crimes in this case, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to the decentralization disorder.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion and convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

Examining the original judgment and the trial court’s duly admitted and closely compared the evidence examined, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant in the original judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. In light of various circumstances, such as the motive and background of each of the instant crimes, the means and method of committing each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s act before and after each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after each of the instant crimes, it does not seem that the Defendant was in a weak state of ability to discern things or make decisions due to symptoms of mental illness, such as anger-flady disability, etc., so the Defendant’s assertion of mental or physical disability is without merit.

C. The determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, the first instance court that is respected under the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle taken by our Criminal Procedure Act.