The appeal is dismissed by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant argued about F, a day-on in a restaurant, and attempted to leave the front wall to the front wall of the Defendant, and was on the victim by a fluoral disease, leading up to the rear wall and fluoring the victim, so the Defendant did not have an intention to assault the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, community service 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In other words, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: ① the victim was faced by the Defendant’s head from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, and the Defendant was faced with the lower court’s inner wall, and the victim was faced with the Defendant’s head, and the victim was faced with the Defendant’s head, and the victim was faced with the Defendant’s head, and the victim was faced with the Defendant’s head, and was faced with the Defendant’s fright

In a consistent manner, the following facts are consistently stated: ② The pictures taken of the instant site are scattered on the wall of the victim, wherein the fluor is broken down, and the fluor is attached to the head of the victim. ③ At the time, the Defendant was on the center of the restaurant, and the Defendant was on the wall of the restaurant that was 3 meters away from the direction of the Defendant. The Defendant was on the wall of the fluor, and the F was on the side of the wall of the restaurant that was 3 meters away from the direction of the Defendant. Since the Defendant was on the part of the Defendant and the victim, if the Defendant was on the part of the wall of the fluor, the direction would eventually be the wall of the restaurant where the victim was on the part of the Defendant. In full view of the fact that the Defendant was on the wall of the restaurant where the fluor was on the part of the Defendant.