A. The Defendant of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles merely caused the victim to go up to a high height, and did not assault or assault the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

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

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion after specifically explaining the above in the "judgment on the Defendant's argument" among the judgment. If the court below legitimately adopted and examined the evidence in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In general, the lower court determined the punishment by taking account of various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no reason to do so.