A. The Defendant, while making a dispute over the issue of construction price with the victim, did not have the face and arms of the victim due to drinking, while putting booms with one another.

The court below erred in misconception of facts.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below consistently made a statement that the defendant, who performed the business of the hotel, found the business of the hotel, together with H, was at the time when he had his head, etc., and had his head, etc. taken place in several times during the period of dispute over the issue of his own and the construction cost. The victim's statement was reliable, ② the victim reported several times at the time of the instant case, ② the police officer dispatched upon receipt of the report, and the victim complained of serious pains, such as selling, etc., ③ the Defendant appears to have been extremely occurring in the very rough situation because it was impossible for the victim to receive the construction cost in full due to defect repair, ④ the victim had no record of receiving the treatment for injury caused by blood transfusion, etc. before the instant case, and it is difficult to view that the certificate of diagnosis of injury to the victim was falsely prepared.

The lower court was justifiable to have convicted of the facts charged of the instant case.

B. In full view of the following factors: (a) the degree of injury suffered by the victim on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not easy; (b) the record of punishment for the same kind of crime is several; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family environment, the background of the instant crime and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the grounds for sentencing asserted by the Defendant shall be considered.