The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the judgment of the court below is a case where the mistake of facts has affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, the punishment prescribed by the court of the court below (one year and four months of imprisonment, additional collection of 100,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Examining the instant case based on the evidence duly adopted and examined as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is just and acceptable for the court below to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case as stated in its holding.

We cannot accept the allegation that there is a mistake of facts affecting the judgment of the court below.

The reasoning of the lower court is invoked, and the Defendant committed the instant crime from August 10, 2016 to the 19th day of the same month. As such, the Defendant was subject to a simple trial test conducted by the protective observation officer during the period from August 10, 2016 to the 19th day of the same month, and despite the fact that it was determined that it was training as a result of a simple trial test, there was no persuasive vindication immediately (e.g., she saw that he was suffering from the abnormal termination of the surgery before drinking).

It is so true that there is no record of the protection observation that the defendant argued the defense, and there is also a statement at the court of the defendant.

However, considering the strong effect of philophones, it is consistent with the rule of experience to deem that flaps were sat down immediately after the medication.

It is hard to accept that the defendant did not know about the about 19th guidance because he did not feel all because he did not feel about the sacrific medication.

The prosecutor's certification is deemed sufficient and there is a reasonable ground to believe that there is an opposing suspicion.

It is difficult to see it.

There are circumstances in which the defendant's family's death and health is not good in relation to the illegal argument of sentencing.

However, it is inevitable to keep the defendant under detention for a considerable period of time.

This case was administered again during the period of suspension of execution for the same crime.

The court below held.