A. In fact, while the Defendant had a telephone call with another person at the time and place indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant was aware of having received a protest from the victim on the ground that the sound was slick, and rather was the victim of the assault, and there was no fact of assaulting the victim as stated in the instant facts charged.

In other words, the victim's statement is not consistent, and in particular, the part that the adult 50km of about 50km goes beyond the string of the chair, and the part that the victim's salvance is also affected by the victim's salke, and the police officer who received the report and dispatched the report was witness only in the situation after such dispute is terminated, and did not witness that occurred before it.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts on the basis of the evidence not directly related to the statements made by the victim without credibility, and thereby convicted the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence (1.5 million won of a fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below. ① The victim consistently stated the contents of the assault as stated in the facts charged in the instant case including the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant case from the time when the complaint was submitted to the investigation agency to the court below, and the situation after the dispatch of the police officer. ② The police officer F, upon receipt of the report, appeared as a witness in the court of original instance to the effect that the victim was faced with the victim on the first floor after the arrival at the site, and immediately thereafter, the Defendant and his mother were present in the court of original instance and the Defendant’s clothes were removed.