The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not intentionally have caused an injury to the victim at the time of the instant case, so the Defendant is not guilty of causing a special assault rather than a special injury to the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized special injury crime against the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

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

2. In light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, namely, the Defendant: (a) committed a fluoral disease, which is an object dangerous to the victim from the nearest distance; (b) caused an injury to the victim if the Defendant was a fluoral disease on the nearest distance; and (c) the motive and developments leading up to the fluoral disease, method, and robbery of the fluoral disease, etc., the Defendant may be deemed to have committed a fluoral disease on the part of the victim, even though he sufficiently perceived that the fluoral injury may occur, rather than on the part of the victim at the time of

Therefore, since it is recognized that there was an intentional injury to the defendant at the time of the case, the defendant bears the responsibility for the crime of special injury.

Defendant

This part of the defense counsel's assertion is not accepted.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and there is reason for sentencing as stated by the lower court.