The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the judgment of the court below, there is no error of misconception of facts in the misapprehension of facts (Article 2 of the judgment of the court below) that the defendant committed a misunderstanding of facts on the part of the victim's head.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

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

2. Determination

A. The court below affirmed the above statement by submitting a written statement to the effect that "the victim reported to the police on February 3, 2013, the day following the day when the instant case occurred, and that "the victim was faced with head from the defendant's disease" at an investigative agency (the victim was faced with head from the defendant's house beyond the chief display place outside the defendant's house," and this is consistent with the defendant's initial police investigation and this court's argument. However, in the subsequent police investigation and prosecutor's office investigation, the defendant reversed the above previous argument to the effect that "the victim was faced with head from the defendant's house," which is consistent with the defendant's first police investigation and this court's argument. It is hard to say that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol but the victim was faced with the victim. It is more difficult to say that the victim and the victim were under the influence of alcohol than the defendant's defendant's 2 and the victim's report."