The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On September 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) 01:25 on September 7, 2015, 2015; (b) on the street in front of the beer of “D”, E, and the Victim F (V, 38 years old); (c) she must return home first.

In relation to this, a fighting dispute has been fighting with E, such as strawing with E.

In the process, the defendant was faced with the victim by gathering the brick (30 cm wide, 30 cm long) which is a dangerous object on the ground that the victim fights, and caused the victim to suffer approximately 6 weeks of medical treatment (in addition, 12 weeks of additional diagnosis).

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding: The Defendant intending to inflict an injury by gathering the bricks indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “clicks”) toward E, and intending to inflict an injury. The victim, in order to fight with two descendants, lost the balance of the Defendant’s fights, thereby destroying the brick by negligence.

Therefore, the defendant committed a special bodily injury.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the judgment.

B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to feel true enough to have a reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

Meanwhile, in a case where a defendant denies a criminal intent, such as intentional intent, which is a subjective element of a crime, the fact may be proven by means of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance with a criminal intent due to the nature of the object, but what constitutes an indirect fact with considerable relevance is based on normal empirical rule.