The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts did not have the victim's her tum, as stated in the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the determination of guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (2 million won of fine, 40 hours of order to complete a program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) determined that the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the lower court were proven, in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, based on the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the lower court. ① The victim was relatively consistent and specific in criminal facts in the investigative agency and the court of the lower court, and, in particular, in light of the content and attitude of testimony, etc., credibility of the victim’s statement was made. Furthermore, there seems to be no reason for the victim to make a false statement against the Defendant while taking criminal responsibility for accusation and perjury. ② At the time, the victim was going up from the subway at the time, and was going up on platform stairs. Although the victim was flicked, it was evident that the victim was not only a contact with the other party, but also a part of flick, so that he was flicking with his son’s knick, thereby making the victim mar.

Even if the time period during which the instant case occurred occurred, and the subway history proposal was combined, it would naturally see that in the process of breaking the stairs in front and rear, it would naturally see the body of another person. However, as the victim stated, it would be in line with the rule of experience that the turt does not intentionally see that the turbane in contact with the tur, as stated by the victim, would not be punished.