A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts is merely a fact of having the victim's head debt collection, and even though he did not inflict an injury on the victim due to the connection with the small branch of the main branch, which is the victim's flick or dangerous goods, as stated in the facts charged of this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged of this case.

B. The lower court’s allegation of unfair sentencing (a two-year imprisonment, a three-year suspension of execution, and a 160-hour community service order, and an 40-hour lecture order) declared by the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below and the court below's decision as to the assertion of mistake of facts, in particular, witness D and G's testimony at each court below's court below's judgment, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim, such as walking a part of the victim's lusium, etc. on several occasions as stated in the facts charged of this case, and collecting beer and beer disease, which is a dangerous object, by gathering the beer and beer disease of the victim. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is

B. It is doubtful that the degree of injury suffered by the victim on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not relatively more severe; however, whether the defendant seriously reflects his fault or not; the defendant appears to be likely to repeat the crime of this case by committing the crime of this case even though there were many identical criminal records; and considering the motive and background leading up to the crime of this case; the result of the crime; the situation before and after the crime of this case; the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable; thus, it cannot be said that the defendant's above assertion is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.