The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of facts and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the Defendant merely committed an assault against the victim while speaking or disputing with the victim who has a de facto marital relationship as at the time. The Defendant did not assault the victim with an intention to take a fry or retaliation against the victim’s report by the police.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting this part of the facts charged.

(A) The defendant argued that there was a mistake of the damage of property and injury in the statement of grounds for appeal, but this part of the argument was withdrawn on the first trial date.

The defendant with mental disorder was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides for a limited term of not less than one year, which is greater than the statutory penalty under the Criminal Act, where the crime of injury, etc. is committed under the Criminal Act for the purpose of retaliation against the provision of a criminal investigation report, such as accusation, statement, testimony or submission of materials, in connection with the investigation or trial of a criminal case or another person.

Here, whether an actor had such an objective should be reasonably determined in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the offender’s age, occupation, and other personal factors; motive and process of the crime; method of the crime; content and mode of the act; personal relationship with the victim; and the circumstances before and after the crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12055, Jun. 14, 2013). The following circumstances duly admitted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant, at around 00:55, resides with the victim on March 27, 2019.