A. The victim of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles led to a trial cost for the reason that the victim had a face of a motor vehicle, and the victim was only replaced with the victim, and the face of the victim was not taken.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, including the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles C and E’s written statement at each court below, the fact that the Defendant, on the ground that the victim was fluordial, included the victim’s face in the window at the victim’s driver’s seat and assaulted several times can be fully recognized.

B. Although it is recognized that the degree of damage on the grounds of unfair sentencing is not excessive, the Defendant is not deemed to be unfair in view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant, from the investigative agency to the trial of the party; (b) is not responsible for the victim; and (c) there is no doubt as to the crime; (d) the Defendant has a suspended sentence once a fine is imposed on the same kind of crime; (c) the Defendant has a criminal record of having been sentenced once a suspended sentence; (d) the Defendant did not present any circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial; and (e

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.