A. As to the facts charged of mistake of facts, the Defendant: (a) was admonishing the victim at the time of the instant case; (b) was exempted from her awareness to the effect that he was guilty; and (c) returned to the vehicle by her hand, etc., on two occasions, and was not intentional; and (d) the Defendant’s act constitutes an act that does not violate social rules.

Among the facts charged, the defendant only moved about 2 to 3 meters in order to move the vehicle to the left side, and there was no intention to assault the victim by using the vehicle.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances revealed in light of the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court and the following facts and circumstances, i.e., ① the victim made a concrete and consistent statement from the defendant within the vehicle from the investigative agency to the trial of the party. According to the images taken at the time of the case, it is confirmed that at the time the defendant took a bath to the victim and fell short of the victim's awareness, and even according to the defendant's statement, the defendant exercised tangible power, such as the defendant exempted from the victim's safety awareness, and was able to exercise the victim's loss. Thus, this part of the statement of the victim is credibility in light of the facts charged. ② According to the images taken at the time of the case, according to the video, the victim's vehicle is in the seat of the defendant, and the victim's vehicle is operated at a very rapid speed, thereby making it clear that the victim fell kne and goes beyond the victim's seat. The conclusion of the judgment below is justified.