A. Although there was a tension between the Defendant and the victim’s arms, there was no fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim beyond the victim.

B. In light of all the sentencing conditions of unfair sentencing, the sentence of the lower court (fine 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the trial court as to the assertion of mistake of facts are consistent with the lower court’s determination: ① The victim and the lower court stated at the police and the lower court that “the Defendant was in the process of taking one’s arms out and going beyond the floor of the facts charged while the Defendant was working in the former Eynam-gun of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant gas station”) due to the trauma of the cost of drinking oil at the former Eynam-gun on December 25, 2012, and reported to the police after avoiding the Defendant’s assault and entering the office, and going beyond the floor of the office of the Defendant’s own arms and again going beyond the floor of the office of the Defendant’s own arms, and there was no circumstance to suspect the credibility thereof; ② the CCTV installed in the instant gas station to the effect that the Defendant took part in the victim’s arms over two times, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant’s sale beyond the floor of the victim’s 28 through 25 times, etc.

B. Determination of the assertion of unfair sentencing is the primary offense by the Defendant, and the degree of injury suffered by the victim is relatively minor, etc. is recognized as favorable circumstances.

However, the defendant.