A. The Defendant, by mistakeing the fact of a special injury, did not get the victim D due to beer disease, which is a dangerous thing.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts about special injury, the defendant argued the same purport in the court below, and the court below rejected it in a concrete statement of the judgment. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, even though there are six criminal records of the same kind and the probation period due to the same kind of crime, the defendant committed the crime of this case, and there is a need for strict punishment against the defendant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not seem to be against his own criminal act with respect to the special injury, and did not agree with the victim or did not make a substantial effort to recover the damage.

In addition, in the instant case where there is no special change in the sentencing conditions that can be considered when considering the fact that the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health condition, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc. as indicated in the record, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

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.