The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

However, a punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal ① Although the Defendant, misunderstanding of the facts, as at the time of the instant case, took the face of the victim first after the Defendant exceeded the victim at the time of the instant case, there was no assault by the victim, such as breaking the victim’s face as stated in the facts charged, or cutting the victim’s clothes. Of the instant injury, the escape of the dog sprink is merely that occurred in the course of the Defendant’s exhumation and going beyond the victim’s body, and is not due to the assault by the Defendant.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (five months of imprisonment) is too unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine the assertion of misunderstanding of facts. According to each evidence presented by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by drinking and salunching after cutting the victim's face face, as stated in the facts charged. The defendant did not appear to have engaged in an independent cause other than the defendant's assault, due to the escape of this case's field, and the judgment of the court below that made the conclusion is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant, without any special reason, injured the victim; (b) the degree of the damage was not provided against the victim; and (c) the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not less than that of the victim in light of the fact that the damage was not recovered until the first instance trial.

However, the defendant is a primary offender, the defendant and the victim committed the crime of this case contingently while under the influence of alcohol, and the victim cannot be seen as having a serious disorder after severe disability, and the defendant is generally disputing the causes of bodily harm of the victim, but is generally recognizing the crime, and they are discompacting, discompensing, and discompensing the errors through the life of confinement.