The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Costs of trial in the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. The Defendant, on the day of the instant case, committed an act identical to the facts charged, although he/she was drinking in C on the day of the instant case.

The defendant was subject to an illegal investigation by an investigative agency in the course of detention, and the court below convicted the defendant on the basis of evidential materials on the part of the prosecutor's office. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of

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

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking into account all the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the witness B’s legal statement, the victim’s statement prepared B, the investigation report (CTV fix), and the field photograph: ① The victim B appeared as a witness at the court of the court of the court below and tried to restrain the defendant by taking the voice of the defendant who was under drinking, ④ the defendant was exposed to his breath, and upon the victim’s report, stated that the police officer continued to fright the defendant, such as taking a bath and frighting to the police officer. ② The contents of the victim’s statement prepared by the victim at the investigative agency are the same purport as well; ② the victim’s statement prepared by the victim at the investigative agency is also consistent with the victim’s statement made by the victim; ③ there is no motive to believe the defendant who was visited by the victim as a customer; ④ there is no objective evidence that the victim visited the defendant; ④ It also conforms with the facts charged in this case.

The defendant asserts that the judgment of the court below is an illegal judgment contrary to Articles 200, 308-2, 309, and 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the facts charged of this case are as seen above.