The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although a mistake of facts was written by the defendant flatd, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts, even though there was no fact that he injured D in terms of the distribution and face of D as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Considering the fact that the defendant maintains his livelihood as an old age pension without any particular income, the punishment imposed by the court below (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court and the lower court, including witness D, F and H’s statement in their respective legal statements, etc.: (1) D consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the lower court that the Defendant was at the time of drinking once, once, five times, and five times; (2) the police officer’s testimony at the lower court court’s court court’s order was at the time of the dispatch to the site; (3) D was at the time of the dispatch to the site of the site; (4) the Defendant’s testimony was at the end of the packing; (4) the police officer’s testimony was at the time of the dispatch to the site; (4) the Defendant was at the time of the movement to the police vehicle traveling along the earth; and (4) the Defendant’s testimony was at the time of the investigation to the effect that it was consistent with D’s face at the time of the entrance into the police vehicle; and (4) the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he made the witness’s testimony to the effect that he made the witness’s testimony.