The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a soup, the Defendant: (a) misjudgments the victim who was covered with a fry face at a soup, and caused the victim’s arms by misunderstanding him as a female living together with the Defendant; (b) but (c) knew that he was not a female living together immediately, he was able to sell the victim; and (d) saw the victim into the fry, and did not look at the victim’s chest by hand.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

① The victim reported the facts of damage to the police immediately after the crime of this case, and thereafter, at the investigative agency and the court of original instance, the defendant consistently stated that the victim's chest was confined to the victim's chest by hand when he saw soup the victim's arms that he saw to get out of the play, and saw the victim to get out of the play. The victim's statement is true in detail without being able to make a statement if he was not a person directly experienced, and the victim stated the damage to E that he did so even after the crime of this case, and even after the crime of this case, the victim stated the victim's statement in detail. In light of the fact that the victim did not have any motive or reason to gather the defendant at the risk of his numerical learning, the victim's statement is credibility.

② The Defendant, who was investigated by an investigative agency, stated that “the fact that there was a fluence of the victim” in relation to the investigator’s question, is not consistent, such as “a fluence was made in a state of fluence with many exemptions at the time,” and “a fluence was accurately memoryd with the victim’s speech.”