A. The Defendant did not assault the victim.

B. The Defendant was in the habitual condition at the time of committing the instant crime.

C. The sentencing of the first instance court on the unfair sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact of assaulting the victim as stated in the judgment of the first instance court.

B. In light of the content of the instant crime committed by the first instance court, which was duly adopted and examined by the evidence, and the behavior of the Defendant before and after the commission of the crime, and the Defendant’s attitude to make statements after the arrest, etc., it seems that the Defendant was in a state of having no ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of the

C. In full view of the developments leading up to the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the details of the offense, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and criminal record, the sentencing of the first instance court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the arguments of the defendant as to the grounds for appeal.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.