A. Although the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the lower court to have been duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., (i) the victim consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court to the effect that he/she was able to take one another’s desire with the Defendant attached to his/her vision, and (ii) G and J consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court to the court of the lower court to the effect that

In light of the consistent statement, since the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant did not have any particular criminal record in addition to a fine once.

However, considering the fact that the nature of the crime of this case is not good, that the defendant did not agree with the victim until the trial of the party, and that the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is not reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.