All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. There is no fact that the Defendant, like the charge of mistake of facts (the Defendant), appears to have shown the victim's attitude of probining the victim's guide, such as the victim's guide, or that the victim said that "I will die or die."

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of 1.5 million won) is too heavy or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, which are recognized based on the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below's erroneous determination of facts (the defendant) and the following circumstances, i.e., ① the victim made a statement at an investigative agency that "the defendant was satisfying each item of the leg at the time," and "the defendant was satisfying several times" and "the satisfying sat sat satisfy" and "the satisfy sat satisfy" several times, and especially the defendant's behavior at the time when the defendant seems to have difficulty without direct experience, and it is judged that he has credibility in his statement; ② the defendant also made a statement that "the victim was "the satisfy" to the victim at the court, and thus the defendant

B. We examine both the defendant and prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing.

The fact that the victim was unable to receive a written application from the victim, and the fact that the victim appears not to have much shocks caused by the crime of this case is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, there are no records of criminal punishment against the defendant, and the family members of the defendant and the defendant have suffered a lot of severe severe pain due to noise conflict with the victim, and there are circumstances to consider the crime of this case as a contingent crime, and there is a little room for the defendant to dispute over the problem of noise between the victim and the floor any longer after the case.