The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of misunderstanding of facts did not pluck up or pluck up E’s fingers due to the fact that e sells E in the hands of its e.g., the e., the coffee cited by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the grounds of the testimony of E without credibility, and there is an error of misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may be recognized as having inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim E as stated in the instant facts charged.

① While working as an employee in the Defendant’s restaurant, the victim E recorded the Defendant’s husband’s desire with the mobile phone, etc., the Defendant her husband requested the husband to take care of the mobile phone and move to the defective toilet, and the Defendant her husband, her husband, police, etc. and went to the restaurant, and then came to the toilet. However, the Defendant was able to take care of himself and her, and it was relatively consistent that the Defendant was plucked and plucked of his hand.

② After the Defendant assaulted as above, the Defendant asserts that he was putting the coffee on his face, while the Defendant raised that he was putting the coffee he cited by himself in his hand. According to the photographs taken at the police station thereafter, the victim’s photographs are consistent with the statements made by the victim rather than the Defendant’s assertion on the right side of the victim.

③ The J, an employee of the above restaurant, made a statement that the Defendant was unable to view the Defendant’s hand to display his hand, and that the victim was unable to hear his voice, thereby complying with the Defendant’s assertion, but it is not deemed that the witness of the case was never observed from the beginning.