A. Although there was a fact that there was a misunderstanding of facts with the victim, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (70,000 won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can be found to have inflicted an injury on the victim, and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is not accepted.

1) As a matter of whether the victim got back from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the victim made a relatively concrete and consistent statement that the defendant was faced with the face of the victim in the face of the victim with a hand-to-face (Evidence No. 5 pages, and Record No. 45 pages). (2) The witness E of the court below did not directly witness the part where the defendant inflicts an injury on the victim, but the victim was unable to directly witness the part where the defendant suffered an injury. However, it is consistent with the statement that the sound was satisfed by the door of the elderly center at the time, and that the defendant was faced with the face of the defendant.

(Evidence Records 21 pages, 57 pages) The victim’s statement and degree of injury coincide with each other (Evidence Records 10 pages, 24 pages). 4) The Defendant asserted that the victim was locked while the victim was in a dispute, and that there was a room to enter again. However, as alleged by the Defendant, it is difficult to easily understand that the victim was injured in light of the general public’s concept, and that the witness F of the lower court is the witness.