A. In order for the injured party to take the Defendant’s hand back by standing his hand, the Defendant was guilty on the part of the injured party by misunderstanding the fact that the injured party did not have her right-hand hand, as stated in the facts charged of this case, even though he did not have her mucked on the victim’s right-hand hand.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and in particular, according to the "CCTV image quality improvement CD" submitted by the prosecutor to the court below, the defendant was found to have exceeded the victim's awareness by considering the victim's face with left hand, and comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidences, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as recognized by the court below due to such act.

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts is without merit (it is not stated in the grounds of appeal, but the Defendant’s defense counsel argues to the effect that the Defendant’s act is a justifiable act because it is merely a passive resistance, and thus constitutes a justifiable act. Thus, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence are examined: (i) the Defendant first follows: (ii) the Defendant is the victim; (iii) the Defendant was able to sell the Defendant’s body; (iv) the Defendant was able to sell the Defendant’s body; and (v) the Defendant was able to freely use it; and (v) the Defendant was able to resist the victim’s price. Thus, the above assertion is without merit, given that the degree of injury to the Defendant is minor; and (iv) the Defendant’s favorable circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the motive for the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.