A. There is no erroneous determination of facts that the Defendant had committed a mistake of facts against the victim’s interests.

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

Judgment

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim E on the left side of the victim E one time due to pro rata, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, so the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

1) The victim made a statement consistent with the victim’s statement to the effect that, until the investigative agency and the court of the court below, “the Defendant reported to close the door to the Defendant, but the Defendant sent a door to close the door, making it impossible to open the door, and making the Defendant go back to a sudden friendly acid.” At the time, F, who appeared on the spot at the time, made a statement consistent with the victim’s statement, to the effect that “The Defendant was at a low price between the Defendant and the lower court,” until the investigative agency and the court of the court of the trial.

3) On June 24, 2014, the following day after the instant case, the victim’s photograph (16-17 pages of the investigation record) and the victim’s body and degree of injury as indicated in the victim’s medical certificate (14 pages) issued on June 24, 2014, correspond to the victim’s statement. 4) It is difficult to find the reason why the victim, who is merely a hospital officer or employee, found the victim as the patient at the hospital, find it difficult to find out the reason to dismiss the Defendant.

5 The victim made the first half of the year.

Even if it is recognized that there are circumstances that do not cooperate with the issuance of a defendant's certificate of disability, etc., such circumstances cannot justify the defendant's act of injury, and thus, it does not interfere with the recognition of the defendant's act

B. Whether or not the defendant is the first offender without any previous conviction, the victim does not want to punish the defendant, and the defendant's health status.