The judgment of the court below (including the portion not guilty) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Fact-finding (the part on violation of the Narcotics Control Act (the part on violation of the Act and violence that the court below found guilty) committed on the part of the victim by allowing the victim to drink the alcohol with the victim, but there is no fact that the victim assaulted the victim by allowing the victim to drink the alcohol on the stroke m, which is a local mental medicine, by using the stroke m, or by inducing the victim to lose the mind.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment and additional collection) to the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of the value of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby failing to recognize the fact of forcibly taking the property by misunderstanding the facts, although collecting evidence submitted by the prosecutor (not guilty part of the lower judgment as to robbery) and recognizing the fact that the Defendant, with the intent of forcibly taking part in the process of taking part, has caused the victim to lose the mind by drinking the alcohol contained in the malm, and by taking part in taking part in the property.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in a criminal trial should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to form such a degree of conviction, the Defendant’s interest should be determined as the Defendant’s guilt even if there is no doubt that the Defendant is guilty. However, such conviction should not be necessarily formed by direct evidence, but is formed by indirect evidence unless it violates the rules of experience and logic. Indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to the facts of crime, under mutual relationship.