A. At the time of the occurrence of mistake of facts, the Defendant had the victim scam in the subway, even though he was living in the subway, and had the victim sit in the subway. However, there was no fact when the victim was scam.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The statement of the victim, etc. of the relevant legal doctrine on mistake of facts is consistent with the main part of the statement in light of the empirical rule, and there is no unreasonable or contradictory part in the statement itself in light of the empirical rule, and as long as the motive or reason that makes a false statement unfavorable to the defendant is not clearly revealed, the credibility of the statement shall not be rejected without any justifiable reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7709, Oct. 25, 2018). 2) In light of the specific legal doctrine of determining the above, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the original judgment, the defendant may sufficiently recognize the facts that he injured the victim, such as the facts stated in the judgment of the lower court, by taking into account the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by each

따라서 피고인의 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다. 가) 피해자는 경찰 조사 과정에서 ‘피고인이 가슴을 치며 죽여버린다고 하고, 도망가지 못하게 잡으니 막 쳤다’, ‘가슴을 손으로 쳐 넘어졌고, 손으로 발을 잡고 있으니 발로 가슴을 걷어찼다’, ‘지하철에서 내려 팔을 붙잡았더니 팔을 비틀어 패대기를 쳤다’고 진술하고(수사기록 9, 29면 , 원심 법정에서도 ‘피고인이 가슴과 목 사이를 쳐서 나가 떨어지고, 머리를 다쳐 멍하게 있었다’,'열차 밖에서 피고인의 팔을 잡자 피고인이 피해자를 둘러쳤다

so far as practicable;

“Written statement”.