The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principle that the Defendant committed an assault by cutting down the victim’s breath and salkeing.

A witness C and E of the court below did not have credibility in the testimony because they have been known to the victim for a long time, and there is a possibility that the victim filed a false complaint with the defendant for the purpose of creating a favorable condition to the agreement or making the victim file a complaint for the crime of assault.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that he assaulted the victim by breathing the victim at the time.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) The victim, witness C, and witness C of the lower court made a consistent statement with the purport that the Defendant, while the Defendant and the Defendant, etc. were dissatisfied with C, said that the Defendant would have “no” entered the victim’s house and entered the victim’s house. 2) Even if the Defendant’s assertion that C and E had a considerable relationship with the victim, it is difficult to reject the credibility of the Defendant’s testimony made an oath and directly testified in the court. Considering the fact that C and E were as the Defendant’s work volunteer fee and had a close relationship with the Defendant to the extent that they would make the card game, it is difficult to view that the above C and E’s legal statement is not reliable.

3. Although it is recognized that the victim filed a complaint against the victim as a crime of assault and did not receive the apology, the victim's complaint is consistent with the victim's statement concerning the essential contents of damage from the investigative agency to the court of original trial.