A. In other words, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that it was only the first time in the trial court, and that they exercised the tangible power to the other party, and that they withdrawn self-defense or legitimate action.

The defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged, and only he did it.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant's assertion on this issue is not accepted since it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted injury upon the victim, such as the statement in the facts charged.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the sentencing on the basis of statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the first instance court is held.