The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not assault the victim by pushing the head between the windowpane of the cargo vehicle and the windowpane.

The protocol of interrogation of a suspect against the defendant to the effect that he/she leads to the confession of a crime is not readable and signed and sealed by the defendant, and there is a reason to suspect that the defendant does not make a statement in his/her own discretion by deception or by other means, and

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Even if the defendant or his/her defense counsel acknowledged the authenticity of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor as to the admissibility of evidence of the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant, the first statement may be reversed before the completion of the examination of evidence as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act and it cannot be used as evidence for conviction. However, once the examination of evidence is completed, the admissibility of evidence of the protocol already admitted is not extinguished as a matter of course, but as a matter of course after the reversal of the doctor's original statement. However, if there is a serious defect that makes it difficult to maintain its validity as it is, and there is no reason to return to the person who made the statement, it may be cancelled even after the examination of evidence is completed exceptionally, and if the revocation argument is accepted as reasonable, the court may exclude the protocol from evidence for conviction through a decision to exclude evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7760, Jul. 10, 2008). Meanwhile, if the defendant asserts the voluntariness of confession recorded in the suspect interrogation protocol and claims it as a false statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do14, free will20.