A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged against the Defendant, despite the fact that the Defendant did not take a bath or interfere with the business by avoiding disturbance at the Ecafeteria operated by the victim D, and the victim was fluor of the instant restaurant with the left part of the Defendant’s elbow with the Defendant’s wind, and did not intentionally destroy the glass, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's legitimately adopted and examined the argument of mistake of facts: (i) the defendant went to the E-cafeteria operated by the victim under the influence of alcohol; (ii) the defendant had a record of obstructing his/her business by drinking in the above restaurant, drinking alcohol, taking a bath or fighting; and (iii) the victim did not provide alcohol to the defendant; (iv) the police officer dispatched upon receipt of the report, sent the restaurant again; and (v) the defendant went to the restaurant after being dispatched by the police; and (v) the victim again tried to find the restaurant again; and (v) the victim made a statement about the crime of this case after the investigation agency to the court of the case; and (v) the victim made a statement about the crime of this case to the court of the court of the first instance; and (v) the victim made a statement about the whole or part of the previous case, but the victim did not provide alcohol to the defendant; and (v) the victim did not provide any detailed and detailed statement about the crime of this case.