The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding (Article 3 of the original judgment) does not contain any fact that the Defendant had the face of the victim by drinking on October 27, 2013, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol so as to have no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the credibility of the victim’s statement in the investigative agency on the background of assault and damage is recognized, and the image of the photograph conforms to the victim’s statement, and ii) the Defendant, at the time of her own, extracted head scams by scambling the victim’s head scam, and recognized the scam with scam with his hand, it is sufficient to find the guilty

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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

Since it seems that the defendant was either in or weak conditions, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

C. The Defendant, who made a decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing, committed the instant crime even though he/she received a disposition of family protection or no prosecution by force against the former wife, who is the disabled, on several occasions. In particular, even after he/she received a decision prohibiting access to the victim from the court, he/she shall inflict injury on the victim.