The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It was true that the Defendant’s daily behavior and the victim’s daily behavior had been scambling. However, the Defendant did not appear at the toilet at the time of the instant fighting match, and the Defendant scamed to the victim who was fighting with the first floor after the fighting was completed, and did not have inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court: (a) the victim consistently stated the details of the damage; (b) the victim appears to have been able to fully memory the external appearance of the offender by dividing the conversation with the victim immediately after the fighting was completed, rather than taking the victim’s assault and diving; and (c) the victim may have known the face of the victim from the time when the first investigation was conducted.

Devid themselves and had been at a fighting site;

E The defendant and H were classified as offenders through the one-way North Korea account, etc., and there is credibility of the statement made by the victim as the offender.

(4) In light of the fact that if the Defendant did not have any relation to the instant crime, it appears that there was no reason for the Defendant to divide the victim’s behavior and conversation on the first floor after the fighting was completed, and that there was no reason to admonish the victim, the Defendant was recognized to have inflicted injury on the victim jointly with H, etc.

B. Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

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

3. It is recognized that violence committed by the defendant with respect to an unfair determination of sentencing is not the direct cause of injury.

However, the injury suffered by the victim is not easy, and the defendant is the defendant.