The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles and mistake, the Defendant, while fighting the victim H with the husband and wife with his/her head, and fighting the body of the victim with his/her body with his/her body, put his/her arms in order to ppuri the loss of the victim with his/her body, was merely profly friendly for the victim’s safety, and did not prevent the victim from drinking. Therefore, there was no intention to injure the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the injury among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service, 40 hours of lectures to prevent sexual traffic, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is grounded on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, i.e., the victim’s statement consistent with this part of the facts charged, and the victim’s statement consistent with the above facts charged, and it appears that it was difficult for the victim to bear such shock to the extent that the victim’s loss was displayed to ppuri as alleged by the Defendant in light of the victim’s circumstances. In so doing, the lower court can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury by drinking the victim’s face as indicated in the facts charged, as indicated in this part of the facts charged.

The decision was determined.

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's determination is just and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the defendant, since the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged in the defendant's assertion.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The victim is around February 12, 2017.