A. The Defendant did not have any scambling gas guns to the victim D.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. The victim D made a judgment on the assertion of mistake of fact is a specific and consistent interpretation from an investigative agency to the court of the court below to determine whether the defendant C and vagabonds are punished.

The Defendant stated to the effect that he was shotfing the gas gun at C’s face, and that he was shotfing the gas gun even if he was to go to the police box, and there was no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the above statement. Thus, according to the evidence presented by the lower court, including the above statement, the Defendant’s assault facts are sufficiently recognized.

3. Determination of unfair argument about sentencing

A. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the Defendant’s previous convictions for the age of 80, and the fact that there was no particular criminal convictions after 1994, and the damage was not significant.

B. Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant with a gas gun that was in possession of ordinary gas towards the victim’s face toward the victim’s face, which could lead to a serious damage, and that it did not recover from damage, the Defendant’s responsibility is not weak.

In addition, considering all sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the family relationship, living environment, details and result of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the lower court is adequate.

4. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.