A. Inasmuch as the Defendant’s misunderstanding of fact did not have a large quantity of the nation’s water draft, and the temperature of the nation’s water was not hot, the victim did not have a image.

The victim's injury is likely to be a new physical activity.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact, since the defendant was found to have been in a body near the elbane of the victim, the defendant was deprived of the victim's left growth and growth, and the victim was in an emergency treatment at the 119 level, and the hospital was diagnosed to have been in an emergency treatment, and the victim was diagnosed to have been in an "abs and 2 degrees pictures" against the victim, and the area suffered pictures was not small. Thus, even if the victim had already been in an area near the elbane of the victim, there was a body of water collection, etc.

Even if the defendant suffered images on the left side of the victim and on the shot, due to the national water coming by the defendant.

may be appointed by a person.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. In full view of the following: (a) the degree of injury to the victim; (b) the Defendant did not make efforts to recover damage to the victim’s company or the victim’s company; and (c) the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.