A. The Defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment.

At the time, the defendant was in vain only once to the victim, and the defendant was in assaulted by the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. In the event that the appellate court’s judgment on the assertion of factual mistake intends to re-examine the first instance judgment after re-evaluation of the first instance judgment even though there is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of a conviction during the trial process, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair because it is contrary to logical and empirical rules, etc. Furthermore, without such exceptional circumstance, the appellate court’s judgment on the finding of facts 1 of the first instance judgment shall not be reversed without permission (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017). No objective reason exists that may affect the formation of a new conviction in the first instance trial based on the foregoing legal doctrine, and it does not appear that maintaining the lower court’s judgment in light of the evidence duly adopted and the content of the lower court’s judgment compared with the evidence duly examined.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s reasoning, on the ground that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the first instance court did not change in the conditions of sentencing, and it