A. The Defendant of mistake of facts is unilaterally against the victim, and there is no fact that the Defendant interfered with his business by avoiding disturbance in the restaurant operated by the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim consistently met with the defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and the defendant was able to avoid disturbance, such as hinginginging the defendant in his hands, and hinginginging the defendant. (ii) The defendant showed that the defendant was at the time of the restaurant operated by the victim when hinging the drinking, and that the defendant was hinging the victim's hinginging the victim's hinging, and corresponds to the victim's statement on the ground that the defendant got hinging the restaurant for 20-30 minutes; (iii) while there were other customers from the restaurant operated by the victim, it does not fit the victim's statement that the victim was hinging from the restaurant without any particular reasons, and that the victim was hing the victim's immediately, and if so, the victim did not have been hing the victim's hing and sing the victim's body.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. The defendant has no criminal power on the assertion of unfair sentencing, etc., but rather the defendant is the defendant.