The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds of appeal, and living together with the defendant.

E Reporting the fact that the issue of victim F, C, and child support is the issue of victim F, and it is a legitimate defense or legitimate act because E is passive to defend the victim F's head, while he/she was unilaterally assaulted by the victim F, and C, not the victim F, but the victim F, and C.

In addition, the defendant did not have the head of the victim F due to a lid by the head of the victim F, and he did not have the head of the victim C because he was dead.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found all of the facts charged in this case guilty.

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (1,200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the victim F, C, an investigative agency, and the court of the court below consistently stated that the defendant first gets the victim F's head debt in the situation where there was a dispute over child support issues in the investigation agency and the court of the court below, and that the defendant was the victim F, C's investigative agency, and each of the statements in the court of the court below as to the act of assaulting the victim C due to the f's lid was partly different from the victim F, C's investigative agency, and the court of the court of the court below as to the act of assaulting the victim C. However, the overall purpose of the statement is that the defendant exercised the tangible power to the victim C by using the f's picture

It clearly stated that the victim C who does not want the punishment of the defendant does not seem to have made a false statement in the court, and the police officer G who was dispatched to the scene at the time of the instant case is "the work of Defendant F" in the court of original instance.