The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

With regard to the charge of assault on June 22, 2016, as to the charge of misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant only has the shoulder of the victim, but does not have the arms and neck of the victim.

With regard to the point of injury on June 28, 2016, the defendant was actually aware of the victim's arms and neck, but there is no fact that the victim's arms and neck are added to the victim's neck.

The sentencing of the court below's improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts as to the grounds for appeal, it is recognized that the defendant committed an assault against the victim on the street above "D" located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 22, 2016, such as the victim's left shoulder and neck, as described in paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment below, and around June 11:35, 2016, at the same place as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment of the court below, it is recognized that the defendant carried the victim's left arms and neck with the victim, and carried them on the victim's diversified seat, as described in paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant.

Although there are no special circumstances or circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s argument that the sentencing was unfair, except for those subject to a fine once until now; (b) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and method of the offense; and (d) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the present argument and the record, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, it is not recognized that the lower court’s sentence was unfair because

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.