A. Although the Defendant did not pay the taxi expense to the victim, the Defendant does not have the victim’s face.

B. The sentence (three million won of fine) imposed by the lower court on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted that the above assertion of misunderstanding of facts is identical to the above assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement on the judgment.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is not acceptable.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.