The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not inflict an injury on the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by stating in the column of “determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel.” In light of the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts, as alleged by the Defendant.

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

B. Determination 1 on the unfair argument of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty. In our criminal litigation law that takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, there is a unique area for determination of sentencing under Article 1.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.) by destroying the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2) In this case, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with