The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of facts on February 26, 2019, the Defendant was faced with the victim’s face with care in the course of the invasion, and the victim’s face does not intentionally be taken.

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

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's face of victim M is sufficiently recognized. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.

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

① The victim consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the effect that the Defendant was seated next to the bees of the victim, and consistently described the situation at the time, and U.S. also stated that he was able to see that the Defendant was able to take the victim’s face once a week.

② On February 26, 2019, when the instant case occurred, both the victim and the witness were first sent to the Defendant on the new wall on February 26, 2019, and there is no specific reason to believe that the witness did not have any kind of false facts against the Defendant who had no relationship with the former. Moreover, the witness appears to have not been punished against the Defendant, unlike the victim, it appears that there was no reason to believe that there was no unfavorable statement against the Defendant, and the contents of the witness’s statement are reliable.

③ The Defendant himself recognizes the fact that there was a dispute between the Defendant and the victim immediately before the crime of this case, and the fact that the Defendant has contacted the victim’s face by hand.

(4)