The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts as to the crime of special injury (the defendant) committed an injury to the victim B, such as as written in the facts charged, but there is no fact that the victim was injured by plastic machines, such as as written in the facts charged.

B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also rejected the Defendant’s assertion on this part of the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in comparison with the relevant legal principles and the evidence, the judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and therefore

B. The Defendant, who was dissatisfied with both parties’ living attitude on the assertion of unfair sentencing, committed a 8-dominative injury by taking advantage of his or her child’s heavy plastic machine and main food, which is a dangerous thing before being seen by his or her children, and by taking advantage of his or her child’s non-discriminatoryly, and committing each of the crimes of this case, which committed emotional or physical abuse on several occasions. The Defendant appears to have suffered considerable physical and mental pain due to the instant crime; the Defendant appears to have exercised domestic violence several times prior to the instant crime; and the Defendant was deemed to have committed several times prior to the instant crime; and the Defendant was subject to probation and suspension of sentence due to remaining injury.

On the other hand, there is an agreement on divorce conciliation and this case between the defendant and the victim B while the defendant opposite to the wrongness and the trial is being conducted.