A. In other words, there is no fact that a mistake of fact-finding defendant caused injury to the victim or threatened the victim with the victim's body as the victim's body was killed.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances are recognized.

The victim, at the investigative agency, found the student uniforms operated by the defendant in order to check the victim's body and pushed the victim's body by hand, and stated that the victim's body was tightly and consistently in order to threaten the victim's body as the victim's body was displayed at the knife of the knife in the knife of the knife.

Defendant also led to confession of the facts charged at the lower court.

On May 5, 2012, the following day of the instant case, the victim was diagnosed by the hospital that he/she suffered bodily injury, such as salt, tensions, etc. of the chills requiring approximately three weeks medical treatment.

According to CCTV photographic data (Evidence No. 20 to 26 pages) installed at the victim's student clothes, it can be confirmed that the defendant pusheds the victim by hand or body, sets up a part of the Kabter's upper part, sets up a part of the body of the victim, and sets up a part of the body of the victim, and then cut off the part of the defendant's left hand. G can check the shape that the defendant is placed on the Kabter by cutting off the part of the defendant's left hand.

In full view of the above circumstances, credibility in the statement of the victim is high, and the defendant inflicts bodily injury on the victim by being pushed down the victim's body by hand, and the victim's "brush" is considered as the victim's body for repair, and the fact of threatening the victim's body can be fully acknowledged as a threat for repair.

Each of the facts charged in this case.