A. The Defendant does not have any misunderstanding of facts against the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court can recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as alleged in the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of mistake as alleged by the defendant.

① The victim consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court below’s decision that “The Defendant: (a) laid down and plucked the victim’s arms in Daegu B on August 9, 2018; (b) was plucked by plucking and plucking them into one floor; and (c) was plucked up and plucked on the plouts; and (d) was plucked by plucking and digging up the left hand.”

(Investigation Records 19, 39 pages, 51, 54, 55 pages). (2) On August 9, 2018, immediately after the instant case, the Defendant reported to the effect that he/she met 112 on August 9, 2018, immediately after the instant case. On the same day, the police arrived at the site on August 12:09, the Defendant recognized the assault of the Defendant and the victim’s apology.

(3) The Defendant also stated that he/she was at the investigative agency that he/she sealed the victim’s left upper part of the trial and left the entrance and exit of the victim.

(4) The diagnosis report submitted by the victim states that Byung's name "the base and tension of the part on the left part of the fingers" is "the base and tension of the part on the left part of the victim." The photograph submitted by the victim contains a hole on the left part of the victim, and is consistent with the statement made by the victim.

(Investigation Records 11, 12 pages) 3. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court's decision on the allegation of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is reasonable.