The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The injury suffered by mistake of fact is not by the assault of the defendant, but by the victim's last part of the electric wires set on the floor while the victim exceeded, and there was no intention of injury at the time of the defendant when the defendant was at the time of the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which recognized that the Defendant sustained injury on the part of the victim, by intentionally injuring the victim, such as an open terminal of head and other parts requiring approximately three weeks of medical treatment, and an influence of the pelpel, etc.

B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved, and thus, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts relevant to the criminal intent due to the nature of the object.

At this time, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial fact should be determined by a reasonable method of determining the link of facts with a thorough observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule.

On the other hand, the willful negligence, unlike gross negligence, should be aware of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, and furthermore, the intention of internal deliberation to allow the risk of crime.

Whether an actor has accepted the possibility of occurrence of a crime shall be confirmed from the standpoint of the actor, taking into account how the general public can assess the possibility of occurrence of the crime, based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act that was externally revealed without depending on the statement of the actor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health room is as follows.