The amount of punishment (3 million won of a fine) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant recognized the facts charged in the lower court’s judgment regarding the assertion of mistake of facts.

The images taken by the victim B's prosecutor's statement and cell phone are supported by the defendant's legal statement in the court below.

The defendant reversed the confession statement in the appellate court, and the defendant's statement of reversal is sufficient to accept it.

It is difficult to deem that there is evidence to support this.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17869, Oct. 13, 2016). There is no error of law by misunderstanding facts in the lower judgment that all facts charged are guilty and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment maintaining a summary order on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

It seems that the sentencing factor of the defendant's criminal records, background of the crime, details of the crime, etc. is determined.

There is no change in sentencing elements in the appellate court.

Although the sentencing criteria are not applied to the case of a request for formal trial against a summary order, the sentencing criteria for assault, damage to property, crime of interference with business in this court, and other factors of sentencing are reviewed again, it is not unreasonable to determine the sentencing of the original court.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit.

The dismissal under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed.