All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant, while making a telephone conversation with his wife, had a beer disease on the floor of the boomed, and had a beer disease on the part of the victim, and the beer disease was faced with a wall subsequent to the victim, and the head of the flick, and the Defendant did not intentionally inflict injury on the victim.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, taking into account the following factors: (a) the content of the victim and H’s testimony; (b) the description of the medical certificate of injury on the victim whose brain-dead was indicated as sick; and (c) the field where the Defendant and the victim reported that the table had been set up between tables.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly examined and the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, namely, the victim and H, were in conflict with the victim and the victim, and the Defendant was suffering from beer and injury to the victim.

The statement, the defendant's recognition of the victim who is seated in his front, and the defendant seems to have been sick, and dolusent intention is recognized as not to be superior to the victim, and the victim's status was caused by the outbreak of beer's disease.

The fact that it is difficult to see it directly and seems to have occurred, and K witness of the trial of the party, H showed that he was "the defendant was sick, and his strike was protruding, and the victim was the victim.

Although testimony was made to the effect that “H testified,” this is different from the statement made by an investigative agency and a court, and the above content is merely merely a statement made by H, and it is difficult to recognize the credibility of H as long as H appeared to be a witness and made a testimony with different contents.