The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Since misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning the crime of injury by a deadly weapon, etc.) (the part concerning the crime of injury by a deadly weapon, etc. in the original judgment) was not a water tank or a gale, which is a dangerous object, there was no injury to the victim.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the records on the assertion of mental disorder, even though the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the following circumstances, such as the course and process of the crime of this case, means and methods, and the defendant's speech and behavior before and after the crime of this case, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions

Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed from the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can be recognized as having inflicted an injury on the victim because the defendant had a water tank or a storm, which is a dangerous object as stated in the facts charged, and thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

A victim G made a statement from an investigative agency to the court of the court below in accordance with this part of the facts charged, and the defendant's act, etc. at the time of the crime are considerably and specifically stated in the circumstances before and after the crime, and thus, the credibility of the statement is recognized (it is not consistent with the victim's statement about some of the non-records, but it is not a circumstance to dismiss the credibility of the overall victim's statement since it is about the geographical detailed matters.). The witness J also made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged from an investigative agency to the court