[Defendant served a notice of the receipt of trial records and a written decision on the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel on December 3, 2013, and claimed mistake of facts as the grounds for appeal on December 19, 2013. Meanwhile, although Defendant’s defense counsel added misunderstanding of facts and unfair sentencing to the grounds for appeal on January 17, 2014, as the grounds for appeal, and on April 15, 2014, it was made after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal, and even if ex officio examination is made, it cannot be deemed that Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act, and the sentence imposed on Defendant is not unfair. Accordingly, the grounds for appeal stated in the grounds for appeal as of January 17, 2014 and April 15, 2014 should be considered only to the extent that the grounds for appeal supplement the grounds for appeal by Defendant and defense counsel).

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant expressed a great voice to the victim F as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and thus, this part of the defendant's assertion

B. We examine whether the ex officio determination defendant issued a prescription stating his resident registration number as the subject of personal information, and thus, constitutes a legitimate act to act as stated in the facts of the instant construction work. According to Article 24(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act, the personal information manager unique distinction between the individual and the individual according to the law.