The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant’s act of having the victim wear a bend and head on the one minute floor cannot be seen as a harsh act.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of suspended execution, 40 hours of community service, and 40 hours of lecture attendance order in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of cruel treatment refers to cases where a person suffers from difficult mental or physical pain. In such cases, whether a person constitutes a cruel treatment should be determined by examining the specific circumstances, such as the status of the offender and the victim, the situation at issue, the purpose of the act, the circumstances leading to the act, and the result leading to the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1166, Dec. 10, 2009). 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 19Do1166, Dec. 10, 209). However, in light of the fact that the defendant instructed the victim to pass the examination of physical strength, there is no evidence to support this, rather than that the defendant made a statement by the victim, and the defendant several times without any justifiable reason, it appears that the defendant suffered from physical pain by using the body, etc., i.e., using so-called physical pain method.