A. In other words, the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in this case, and there was an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of a fine of 500,000 won imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim D made a statement to the effect that "the defendant was satisfing his fat, drinking, etc. with his fat, etc.; (ii) the defendant has a concrete and consistent content; (iii) the defendant also has exercised a tangible power to the extent that he was satisfing the victim; (iv) the defendant stated that he was 3 times with his own hand, etc. at the time when he was investigated by the police (Article 18-19 of the Investigation Records), and (iii) the E witnessed the situation at the time stated that "the defendant was fatfatd with the appraisal, and was fatd with the victim's unilateral violence; and (iv) the diagnosis details of the diagnosis in the written diagnosis correspond to the above facts of damage (Article 4 of the Investigation Records), etc., it is reasonable to deem that the defendant injured the victim in the same way as the facts charged.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. We examine the argument of unfair sentencing, the victim's injury is relatively minor, and there is no criminal power against the defendant, and the crime of this case is committed by the defendant in the course of claiming compensation for damages caused by the passage of the construction vehicle, and it is recognized that there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances, but the court below has already considered the above circumstances.