A. Although the Defendant did not assault the victim who is a driver, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below to comprehensively consider the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the victim has consistently stated in the investigative agency to the effect that he was assaulted by the defendant, ② the defendant recognized all the facts charged in this case in the court below and found it difficult to find out circumstances to suspect the credibility of the statement, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts that the victim was assaulted by the driver, as stated in the judgment of the court below, so

B. It is recognized that the extent of assault exercised by the Defendant against the victim is not too serious.

However, considering the fact that the nature of the instant crime is not good, the Defendant again committed the instant crime even if he had been committed several times of violence, and the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the said assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.