The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant in mistake of facts only has expressed a desire for the victim D to take a bath to the defendant, and there is no assault against the victim.

The punishment (fine 300,000 won) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following facts that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., (i) the CCTV images taken by the defendant at around 16:49, on March 28, 2019, in which the victim’s left face is pushed away or taken away from the victim’s pharmacy, and (ii) the defendant was arrested as an flagrant offender by the police who arrived at the scene on March 28, 2019, immediately after the fact that the defendant was arrested as an offender at the scene around 16:53, 2019, and (iii) the victim stated in the court of the court of the court below “(the defendant) that the victim was the hand-on hand and the shoulder, etc. at several times,” the fact that the defendant abused the victim is sufficiently recognized as stated in the court below’

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, to refrain from imposing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and all of the reasons for sentencing specified in the records and arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too too unreasonable and thus, is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.