The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In determining the facts, the Defendant, on the part of the Defendant, has 2 and 3 sealed the victim on 2 and 3 occasions and caused the victim to go beyond a bridge on a signboard prohibiting parking. However, there is doubt as to whether the victim was injured by the bones of the bones, and the Defendant suffered the above injury in domestic affairs.

Even if the defendant was not expected, the defendant was not anticipated.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant committed assault against the victim's ship 2,3 times, and thereby, it can be acknowledged that the victim was suffering from the victim's bridge on the signboard prohibiting parking. The facts of the above recognition, the form and degree of the defendant's assault, the victim was diagnosed at the hospital immediately following the following day after the case, and the victim was suffering from the injury to the bones of the bones for other reasons (the National Health Agency of the Republic of Korea), etc., in light of the fact that the victim was beyond the victim's assault, and the victim was suffering from the injury to the bones of the bones for other reasons before the case, it can be sufficiently recognized that the victim was suffering from the injury as at the time of the original trial, and that the defendant could have sufficiently anticipated this.

Therefore, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and it is not possible to find any illegality in the mistake of facts alleged by the defendant.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the fact that the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim, and the defendant wants the defendant's wife against the defendant, and recognized his mistake and reflects his depth, etc. are favorable to the defendant, but the court below seems to have determined the punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and the defendant's assault was beyond the victim and was not weak.