The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: misunderstanding of facts and unfair sentencing;

A. The Defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. When comprehensively considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court from the perspective of the principle of court-oriented trial on the assertion of mistake of facts, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the judgment of the first instance court on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance unless there are exceptional cases deemed significantly unfair to maintain the judgment of the first instance court on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010). In this case, the victim B appeared in the court of the lower court and made a statement consistent with the facts in the instant case, and the lower court recognized the credibility of such victim’s legal statement. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is difficult to find new materials or circumstances to reverse the judgment of the lower court.

Ultimately, the court below's finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on the evidence as stated in its holding is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts, such as the Defendant's assertion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court explained the grounds for sentencing.