The defendant does not have committed any crime against the victim.

(In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles). Even if such fact is recognized, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. The lower court consistently stated that the following circumstances, i.e., ① the victim made a statement that “the victim was aware of the fact at the time of assault, divided the Defendant’s personal information in front of the victim, and confirmed the Defendant’s personal information through the person who was assaulted,” and ② the victim specified that he was at least 180 cent of the offender’s appearance from the time of reporting to the police immediately after the instant case, and was in line with the victim’s physical characteristics and appearance at the time of the victim’s appearance. Since then, the lower court clearly identified the offender as the Defendant in the CCTV screen in the investigative agency, ③ even E made it clear that the perpetrator was the Defendant through the CCTV screen, and was not aware of the fact that there was a large number of people in the victim, and caused a reduction of the victim’s communication device,” and that the perpetrator was identified through CCTV screen in the investigative agency, ④ the victim’s appearance of the offender, as well as the victim’s statement and appearance at the time of the victim’s appearance.

In light of the circumstances stated by the court below, the victim and E’s statement are not doubtful in light of the empirical rule, and it is difficult to find out a special motive or situation where they make a false statement. The facts charged of this case are fully convicted.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the attitude of the instant crime and the degree of damage, etc., the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is considered.