A. Although there was a fact that a misunderstanding of facts caused the victim or D to have a dispute by contact with the victim while the victim was absent from the victim who was living in the way of the defendant's way in the escalator, the defendant did not assault the victim, and the defendant did not have any intention to assault or injure the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) the victim and D have consistently and specifically stated the damage from the investigative agency to the court below's court; (b) the defendant appears to have committed an assault at the time of arrest as an offender (Evidence No. 5 pages); (c) the witness H was under contact with employees in charge of the burial management and went into the scene of the crime; (d) the defendant intentionally expressed the victim's statement that he tried to leave the victim and D with his intent to leave the victim (Evidence No. 35 pages of the evidence record) and tried to leave the victim at his hand (Evidence No. 35 pages of the evidence record); (c) the defendant intentionally stated that the victim was the victim's injury on the ground of the first to the first to second to second to the lower court's judgment; and (d) the defendant's assertion that the victim was the victim's use of a green photograph at the place where the victim was exposed to 1,000-to second to the lower court's underground.

B. The defendant's decision on the argument of unfair sentencing is elderly and is a basic livelihood recipient.