The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant does not have any misunderstanding of facts against the victim D.

No later than November 30, 2012, the victim was found in the defendant's house before November 29, 2012, and entered the call taxi after drinking and drinking at the defendant's house.

On November 29, 2012, the victim made several telephone conversationss with each other on the new wall on several occasions, and also made two or more calls on 112, and the victim is deemed to have suffered an injury on November 29, 2012.

Nevertheless, on November 30, 2012, the victim collected the defendant by making a false statement that he/she was in contact with the defendant at the defendant's office.

The court below erred in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victim found the defendant's house at the court below to be "I would die as soon as possible" by calling to B around November 30, 2012. The defendant called B's right to drinking to B's house, and later he went to drinking. The defendant again appeared to be the head in the court below's house. The defendant was the head in the second place in the court below's house, and the defendant was the head in the second place in the court below's house, and the son's son was scoke in the head, and the defendant was found to have been scoken in the court below's house, and the police also stated to the purport as above. The victim's statement was specific and consistent with the victim's statement to the effect that the victim was found to have been the victim's own house of this case, but there was no possibility that the victim's own house of this case was found to have occurred.