A. Since the Defendant did not commit an assault against D by creating a misunderstanding of facts, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, especially the witness D, J, and K’s respective legal statements of the lower court, and the statements written by D, the facts that the Defendant used to assault D by walking along D can be recognized.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is lawful, and the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is rejected.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is recognized to have caused the instant crime to hear the speech that he/she was subject to assault from D’s sexual behavior, friendly C and G, and assist them.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant did not oppose the instant crime while denying the instant crime; (b) the Defendant had the history of having been punished for the same kind of crime; (c) the details of the instant crime; and (d) the circumstances after the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, the Defendant’s punishment against

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit.