The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged of this case, did not have assaulted the victim by putting the victim’s high exchange.

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

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant could be recognized as having committed assault against the victim as stated in the instant facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is rejected.

1) The victim E received a report from the investigative agency to the lower court, and returned to the police officer who was called upon having been on the charge of a dispute with E, while the Defendant, who was not an employee of the management office, entered the management office.

After that, while the defendant has re-drawed with a dispute, the defendant left the house with a sudden loss, and the defendant has ever been living in the kitchen and sound of the kitchen.

피고인은 고환을 놓고 난 후에 화가 계속 났는지 관리사무소 벽면에 자신의 머리를 강하게 부딪쳤다 ”라고 폭행을 당하게 된 경위 및 과정, 내용, 그 전후 상황에 대하여 비교적 구체적이고 일관되게 진술하였다( 증거기록 제 8 쪽, 제 34 내지 37 쪽, 공판기록 제 32 내지 36 쪽). 2) E는 “ 당시 관리 사무실 문 밖에 있어 피고인이 피해자 E을 폭행한 장면을 목격하지 못했지만, 관리 사무실 안쪽으로 들어 갈 때쯤 피해자 E이 ‘ 엌, 엌’ 하면서 고통을 호소하는 소리를 들었고, 그 후 ‘ 쿵, 쿵’ 하는 소리를 들었다.

The defendant was asked to the victim E, and the defendant was found to have been in his own high return, and he was found to have his head on the wall thereafter.

was made.

The victim E was off from the victim E, and was in a hole to the return.