Determination of punishment (one million won of a fine) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant recognized the facts charged at the original trial (the second trial) on the assertion of mistake of facts.

A victim's statement shall support the confession of the defendant.

The defendant reversed the confession statement in the appellate court, and the defendant's statement of reversal is sufficient to accept it.

It is difficult to deem that there is evidence to support this.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17869, Oct. 13, 2016). In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts leading up to the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendant to have committed an assault against the victim while engaging in a conflict of interest with the victim who expressed the victim’s desire and demanded a death.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment maintaining a summary order on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

The punishment seems to be determined by taking the background of crimes, behavior attitude, etc. as the sentencing factor.

The court below did not err in selecting and applying sentencing factors, and there is no change in sentencing factors in the appellate court.

Although the sentencing criteria are not applied to a case where the defendant requested formal trial against the summary order, the sentencing criteria are not applied to this case. However, even if this court examines the sentencing factors as set forth in the sentencing criteria for assault crime, and other factors of sentencing again, the decision of the original court is unreasonable.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit.

The dismissal under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed.