A. Although the defendant was in the vicinity of the site of this case at the time of mistake of facts, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant even though he did not have inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim with B as stated in the judgment of the court below, there is an

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

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below rejected the argument of the defendant in detail under the title of "determination of the defendant's assertion" in the judgment of the court below. The court below rejected the above argument. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim's drinking alcohol at the time, or the police officer called upon upon receiving a report immediately after the case, made a statement to the same effect consistently from the investigation agency to the court of the court below (Evidence No. 32, No. 160, No. 92, No. 160), ② Each statement of G, H, and I presented to the scene of the crime at the time of the crime (Evidence No. 32, No. 160, No. 92, No. 160), ② The statement of the defendant was consistent with the purport that it was difficult to view that there was an assault by multiple persons other than one person, as a whole, on the part of the court's judgment, it was due to the victim's testimony at the investigation agency.