The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant: (a) committed the instant pipe on the side of the vessel; and (b) the said pipe was scare as far as the lower part becomes a blind, and the victim’s knee cannot be shocked unless the external power is displayed.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that determined that the above pipe was used by the defendant due to the defendant's occupational negligence is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, namely, ① immediately after the Defendant consistently placed the pipe of this case over the upper part of the vessel from the investigative agency to the court, the victim shocked the victim’s knee, knee, with the Defendant’s knee.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant made a statement; (b) the instant pipe, which is necessary to fix one’s own ship at the time, was merely expected to be the ship of another person; and (c) the Defendant had already reported that the damaged person took the fishing age before the above pipe was used; (b) the Defendant, who is engaged in the anchor work, had a duty of care, such as leaving the pipe on the floor so as not to use the pipe; and (c) the Defendant, who was negligent in performing his duty of care on May 7, 2013 and caused injury to the victim by shocking knee of the victim. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is made.