A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles does not contain any misunderstanding of facts against the victim as if he/she had a view to the victim of the facts charged.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was located far away from the victim, and only was faced with the direction of the victim in a direction different from that of the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below can be fully recognized (According to the testimony of the victim and E by the witness of the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant display a net value as the victim would have reached the victim, and there are no special circumstances to suspect the credibility of these testimony), and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in the case is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as

B. In full view of all the circumstances after the Defendant committed the instant crime, including the background and method leading up to the instant crime, the motive for the commission of the crime, the degree of damage, and the Defendant’s mistake, and other circumstances constituting the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the record, including the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, home environment, and the record of punishment, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, 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.