A. The Defendant of mistake of facts is only a fact that he had an article with the victim, but does not have any fact that he has pushed the victim's chest, spawn him, and spathed and spawn him.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the 500,000 won of fine and the cost of lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim stated that the victim suffered bodily injury due to the Defendant’s satisfeing the victim’s chest by cutting down the satch and satching 14 days, consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the court below; (ii) the CCTV video recording the situation at the time of this case, the Defendant can confirm the fact that the victim’s chest was pushed down and satfling the satfe, and satfling the victim’s chest; and (iii) the content of the written diagnosis of injury is accurately consistent with the victim’s statement. In full view of the following circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant sustained the victim’s chest and satfe

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the crime of unfair sentencing, the crime of this case is one of the cases where the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim by means of cutting breath and salkeing the victim’s breath, without taking any measures to recover the victim’s damage, and even though the crime of this case was clearly recorded on CCTV, the Defendant appears in the attitude of not recognizing his criminal act until the end while asserting that he could not have been able to understand, and the Defendant had been punished as the same criminal act in the past, and in full view of other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, details and contents of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Accordingly, the defendant's objection.