A. The Defendant is only a fact that he had been stuffed by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, but does not have any fact by pointing out such fact.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below's conviction of all the facts charged is just and there is no error of mistake of facts in

(1) The contents of the statement made by a victim from an investigative agency to the court of the court below shall be equally different from each other.

However, it is consistent that the whole purport of this is that the defendant got the victim who was seated above the fessing.

(2) Defendant also has no dispute over other statements made by the victim, such as having spambling, etc.

In this situation, it does not seem that the victim made a false statement only when the victim was able to do so.

(3) At the time, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, where the defendant was at the time, was broken off, and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu is scattered.

In addition, the victim seems to have been shocked more than the above facts.

Considering this point, it can be understood that the victim's statement was changed from the victim to the victim's statement without clearly memorying the specific situation at the time of the defendant's objection.

④ The victim stated in the investigative agency that “the Defendant does not assault him as drinking or her, but is not absolutely at any time.”

In light of this, even if the victim is one of the divorce lawsuits against the defendant, only one side favorable to himself.