The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant is not guilty of having committed a crime against the victim, and the victim goes beyond his own discretion.

B. Sentencing 1 Sentencing 200,000,000,000 won, which is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the first instance trial as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim C, from the investigative agency to the court of first instance, was the Defendant who caused the damage by the occurrence of a trial expense between the victim and the Defendant and the victim; (ii) the Defendant was making a relatively specific and consistent statement to the effect that the victim was faced with the victim’s shoulder while the victim was pushed the victim’s right to the right in the course of resistance, and the victim was faced with the victim’s shoulder on the floor; and (iii) the wife E and the victim had attempted to commit the act at the time of the victim at the time.

In full view of the difference between F and the Defendant and the victim, the circumstances leading up to the physical fighting between the Defendant and the victim, the background leading up to the victim's bodily injury, and the fact that the Defendant stated in substitution with the above C on the part of the victim's bodily injury, etc., the fact that the Defendant was faced with the victim, such as the statement in the first instance judgment, and the shoulder part, etc. was faced with the floor, can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime by contingency while making a mutually agreed with the victim, and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant crime.

On the other hand, however, the defendant does not reach an agreement with the victim, because it appears that the victim itself goes beyond his own discretion and does not have a serious reflectiveness, until it comes to the trial.