Defendant

In addition to the one-time price of the victim of mistake of facts, the defendant did not commit any harm to the victim by committing the act as stated in the facts charged, and only attempted to escape from the victim who was attached the defendant.

The sentence (six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below by the public prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

According to the victim’s statement and CCTV CD images as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s act cannot be justified solely on the basis that the Defendant sufficiently recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim as stated in the facts charged with an attack, and that the victim took the clothes of the Defendant during that process.

It is reasonable to respect both parties’ assertion of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). In full view of the following: (a) there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial; and (b) the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court are the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, records of the crime, circumstances and methods of the crime, degree of assault, and the circumstances after the crime (the Defendant continues to make a vindication that is inconsistent with objective and obvious evidence up to the trial). Considering that the sentence imposed by the lower court was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion; and (c) various sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, background and method of the

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.