A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, which led to a mistake of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles that led to the Defendant’s failure to accurately see the situation at the time, while the victim was faced with the Defendant’s appearance, which led to the Defendant’s failure to prevent the occurrence of the victim, and that the Defendant was guilty of the Defendant’s testimony friendly to the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one million won) is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) there are circumstances under which the Defendant suffered an injury due to the Defendant’s negligence of unreasonable sentencing, and the Defendant’s health is not good; and (b) economic circumstances are difficult as a recipient of basic living benefits; and (c) the Defendant’s negligence (one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted that he was not guilty as in the grounds for appeal, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion as in the statement in the second half half half to third half of the judgment of the lower court, and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. In addition, in comparison with the above judgment of the lower court, the lower court is just and acceptable, and in addition, inasmuch as F is a member of a meeting such as the victim, but it is not deemed that the Defendant made a false statement unfavorable to the Defendant only because he was pro-Japanese, such as going through a meeting as he was a member of the victim, and thus, the credibility of such statement is recognized. Therefore, the lower

B. The current Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the first trial-oriented principle and the second trial-oriented principle as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, has an inherent area in sentencing determination in comparison with the first trial.