The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On September 29, 2014, the Defendant, by mistake of fact, was only a unilateral assault against the victim B on September 29, 2014, and did not look at the victim. Therefore, the lower court erred by mistake of fact.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The circumstances stated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts are different from the circumstances stated by the court below. According to the photograph of the police officer called to the scene on the day of the instant case, the victim was suffering from the victim's entrance, and the victim was called to the police after the victim was born. The victim was not the defendant, and there was no person to assault the victim other than the defendant, and the victim was presumed to have inflicted self-harm, but the victim was presumed to have inflicted self-harm. However, the victim was not directly witnessed by the defendant, but did not have sufficient appraisal between the victim and the defendant.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to find out the defendant living together at the time of the victim's self-harm, the fact that the defendant assaults the victim can be sufficiently recognized. Thus, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court on the grounds that new materials of sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the first instance court did not change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court.