A. Although the Defendant was fighting with the victim, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged cannot be accepted, given that the Defendant fighting was conducted with the victim, and then reconciliationd with the victim, and the Defendant was also caused by the said fighting.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant (the penalty amounting to KRW 1,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the facts that the defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below can be acknowledged, and the grounds alleged by the defendant alone alone are errors in the judgment of the court below

The defendant cannot be said to have made a mistake in the court below (the defendant recognized his mistake in the court below, and even if he written the reasons for appeal, he recognized the victim's flaps and the victim's fingers. Therefore, the defendant's misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant recognized the crime in the lower court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, the Defendant made a statement that seems to be denied in the first instance trial, and the objective data to recognize that the Defendant agreed with the victim has not been submitted (the victim stated at an investigative agency that he/she would be punished by the Defendant) and the degree of injury is less light.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant cannot be seen as having a record of criminal punishment, such as bodily injury, assault, etc.; (b) there is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment; and (c) all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower

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

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.