A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

except that, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Although the defendant in mistake of facts opened a window on the side of the driver's seat of a motor vehicle and made a dispute with the victim, since the window at the time took up only one to two cm, the victim's arms cannot enter the vehicle. Therefore, as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below, there was no fact that the defendant rapidly released the motor vehicle and caused the victim to face with the window on the side of the driver's seat.

Even if the sale of the victim was faced by the vehicle, the defendant did not have the intention of injury.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of social service, 200 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant made the same assertion as a mistake of facts among the grounds for appeal of this case, and the lower court acknowledged the credibility of the statement made by the victim’s investigative agency and this court. ② Witness F, at the time of the instant case, has observed the appearance of moving one to two meters along with the vehicle in which the victim was towed at the time of the instant case, but the victim was not accurate, and the Defendant appeared to move from the victim immediately after leaving the scene, and stated to the purport consistent with the victim’s statement. ③ At the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not open the string of the said vehicle to the victim, and ④ At the time of the instant case, the dispute occurred due to the lack of opening the string of the said vehicle between the victim and the victim, ④ the fact that the victim voluntarily started the said vehicle in a situation outside the said vehicle to verify the access certificate of the said vehicle, ⑤ the fact that the access certificate on the said vehicle appears to have been another vehicle of the Defendant at the time immediately after the occurrence of the victim’s photograph.