The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the victim misunderstanding of facts (as to the part not guilty of the reason for special injury) observed that when the defendant was seated in a stairs before the victim was injured, he/she had observed what he/she had been authorized to do so; (b) the defendant was found in the color jacker (hereinafter referred to as “instant jacker”) in the outside machine in which the defendant was arrested at the time of arrest; and (c) the victim’s doctor who treated the victim was “the victim is an object using the criminal’s tool, but the victim was not able to confirm whether he/she was using the tools, but the victim was using the jacker, which is a dangerous object.”

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found Defendant guilty only on the facts charged of the instant injury, and acquitted Defendant on the charges charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the title "2. Judgment" of the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below, and it is sufficiently proven that the defendant used the instant jalp as a criminal tool, taking into account the following: (a) the spread that the defendant was suffering from the crime was found in the defendant's residence with "dupfe," and that the Defendant was not the colorer discovered in the instant jalp; (b) the defendant was arrested and detained to the police that "I would put the clothes back to the police; (c) the suspect who was committed by the investigation agency at the time of the discovery of the instant jalp, and (d) there was no evidence that the victim's genes, etc. was discovered in the records even if he was examined at the time of the occurrence of the instant jalp, and there was no evidence that the defendant used the instant jalp as a criminal tool.

no longer than see.