A. The facts charged by the Defendant of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be deemed to have been proven without any reasonable doubt.

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 court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion after having presented the same argument as the grounds for appeal in the second instance of the judgment, which is the same as that of the grounds for appeal. If the lower court legitimately admitted and examined the evidence in light of the records of the instant case, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

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

B. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it in the appellate

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined the punishment by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, such as the background and consequence of the Defendant’s act as above, and the result thereof, and there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial. In addition, considering all of the sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and means of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.