The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On December 21, 2011, the Defendant of mistake of facts did not cause injury to the victim D, and the Defendant’s wife of the victim’s left hand was cut off on or around April 201. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts in the court below made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the above argument by explaining the judgment on the defendant's argument. The court below's decision is just and acceptable if we compare the above judgment of the court below with the records.

In addition, although the defendant used the provisional name of H, it was revealed that this name was A through the identity verification procedure at the police station immediately after the instant case, and returned to the police officer to undergo an investigation again within a prompt time, but she was arrested and investigated by a warrant of arrest after her return home without telephone, and the defendant was under investigation by the police. The defendant stated to the effect that "the situation at the time of the instant crime is not well memory or memory" when she was investigated by the police. However, the court below and the court of first instance stated to the effect that "the fact that she did not assault or injure the victim as her," and that it is inconsistent with the statement, if the victim was suffering from the knife on April 2011 as alleged by the defendant, it is difficult to believe that the victim was remaining until December 2011, which was eight months after her own name, in light of the empirical rule, and thus, the victim was not the victim's injury inflicted on December 21, 2011.