The judgment below

Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the crime of special injury by mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below, the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, although the defendant did not have a substantial response to cleaning.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On April 15, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 20:15, around 20:15, 2018; (b) around 20:15; (c) around 20:15, on the grounds that the Defendant, who was dryed from the victim H(22 years of age) before approximately 2 weeks, demanded the victim to return gold sheets owned by the victim; (d) on the grounds that the Defendant’s face was continuously requested by the victim; and (e) on the grounds that the Defendant, as a drinking, took twice the head of the victim’s head for the clean-up (1m in length) for cleaning of dangerous articles.

As a result, the Defendant carried dangerous things and inflicted injury on the victim, such as the cutting of internal walls that require treatment for about 8 weeks.

B. Determination 1) First of all, the part of the statement of witness B Q included in the second trial record of the court below that "the victim made a statement that "the victim "" from the victim " was satisfying the victim" is a full statement containing another person's statement other than the defendant. The defendant did not have consented to it as evidence, and it does not correspond to the case where the victim who made the original statement is unable to make a statement on the trial date stipulated in Article 316 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is not admissible as evidence. 2) Next, in light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court, it is consistent with the facts charged, the police statement of the victim, the police protocol of the police suspect interrogation of the police suspect (three-party) that corresponds to the facts charged, and the part of the victim's statement among the statements of the court below.