The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the absence of a misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim by breaking the victim’s s and chests four times with the victim’s hand, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by misunderstanding the fact.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) imposed by the court below is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant denied the facts charged in the instant case by asserting the same purport as that of the trial court in the lower court, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the reasons, etc. stated in the third page of the lower judgment.

The circumstances of the court below's detailed statement and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the statement about the victim's injury is specific, detailed, time, and there is a little difference between the statements, but considering the victim's age, etc., it cannot be deemed that there is a difference in the intrinsic part; ② the apartment security guards reduced the damage that the resident was not subject to excessive punishment from the apartment security guards, but reversed the statement by adding the statement that the resident was uncomponed with the absence of reflectivity. ③ Although there is a difference between the testimony of E, F, and G and the victim's statement, at least there is a difference between the defendant's excessive part and the victim's statement, it cannot be readily concluded that it is inconsistent with the victim's credibility in the detailed part because it was likely to be distorted based on the initial statement when the defendant was in a situation beyond the victim's direction or after the victim's statement.