The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. That the Defendant sustained injury as a result of the instant crime by mistake of fact

Although the credibility and probative value of the victim's statement and diagnosis statement are low, and the victim's duty to take relief measures is not recognized as minor, the judgment of the court below convicts the defendant of the facts charged of this case on a different premise, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. In light of the fact that the injury caused by the instant crime was minor, the damage was restored by the automobile comprehensive insurance, the Defendant was the primary offender, and the aged, the lower court’s punishment (3 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Although the lower court also asserted that the Defendant was not guilty on the grounds of appeal, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds of the same circumstance as the entries in the 2nd parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel with parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel with the 4th parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel, and further closely reviewed the judgment above, it is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding

B. 1) The current Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has a unique area for the determination of sentencing, and it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in the case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2) The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element for sentencing favorable to the grounds for appeal are deemed to have been sufficiently considered when the sentence was determined in the lower court, and there is no new additional circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court, and there is no other additional circumstance to change the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and environment.