A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles does not contain any fact when the victim’s clothes and face is taken, and where the victim’s cell phone is attached or when the head is taken once, it is an act with the consent of the victim.

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

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant's cell phone is destroyed as shown in the facts charged in this case, and the victim's face and face are taken once a week by selling it. Thus, the defendant's assertion on this point is without merit.

1) After the occurrence of the instant case, the victim stated to the police officer who was dispatched to the scene of the report as stated in the facts charged, that “the Defendant prices the part and face of the victim once a week and the face of the victim once a week.” The victim repeated the above statements at the district unit on the day of the instant case. 2) The victim stated in the court below that “The part of the victim’s head to be worn out is unsatisfy, and the face is unsatisfy and blue. The face is unsatisfy.” The victim stated in the court below that “The face is unsatisfy and unsatisfy, but it is little to ice to the extent that it is satisfy.”

A victim's legal statement in the court below is partially consistent with the police statement.

However, although the above statements fall short of the police statements, the defendant made a statement at the court of original instance that "I will make a statement at the police". It is somewhat unclear that the above statement at the court of original instance is due to the limit of memory following the passage of time, and even if the body of body is lost, it is sufficient to dismiss the credibility of the police statement.