The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, in the course of leading the victim D by the victim, had been forced to breathize the victim’s breath, the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though there was no assault on the victim as stated in the lower judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the facts of assaulting the victim as stated in the lower judgment. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

1) From the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the victim since then rejected the victim's request from the defendant to leave the taxi, but the defendant refused to leave the taxi. The victim saw the victim's back seat to cut off the alcohol disease cited by the defendant and put him at retail. The defendant was found to not get off the taxi and her head. The defendant was going out in the process of frighting the victim's breath because she did not look back out of the taxi, and she was in the process of breath because she did not do so. The victim's breath, who tried to remove breath from breath, was found to have expressed in detail and in detail three times the victim's left breath of the defect that he tried to remove breath.2) The victim's statements and circumstances were also rejected as follows: "The victim's statements and circumstances were somewhat consistent with the victim's statements and the victim's credibility."