A. Although the Defendant did not assault the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the lower court to be comprehensively admitted and examined by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court that he spited and spited one’s face outside a discount so that the victim was spited and spited in his face, and the above statement made by the victim conforms to the CCTV image of the discount set in which the case occurred, etc., the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of assaulting the victim as stated in the judgment of the lower court, and the above argument by the Defendant is without merit

B. It is recognized that the defendant does not have the same criminal record as the defendant in determining the unfair argument of sentencing.

However, considering the fact that the nature of the crime of this case is not good, that the defendant did not agree with the victim until the trial of the party, and that the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is not reasonable.

3. In conclusion, 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.