The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit a crime that the lower court found guilty.

B. Violation of Acts and subordinate statutes or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below erred by violating the Constitution, laws, orders and rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

C. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant did not have committed the same crime as the stated in the facts charged, and the court below rejected the judgment in detail on the grounds of appeal 3 through 4. The court below rejected the judgment in the third through 4th of the judgment. If the reasoning of the judgment below shows that the defendant himself was present at the scene if he damaged another person other than the defendant, or that it did not do so, the judgment of the court below is just.

Therefore, the defendant's misconception of facts, violation of laws or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. According to the result of this court's response to the Seoul Southern District Court's request for the delivery of documents against the defendant, it is recognized that the defendant's diagnosis name was presumed to have been in a state of mental disorder at the time of the act of the case pending the Seoul Southern District Court's trial, as it is the fact that the defendant's diagnosis name is the symptoms of the symptoms, is serious, and the risk of self-harm due to interest and aggressiveness exists, and that it is presumed that it was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the act of the case in the Seoul Southern District Court.

However, according to Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, a crime with mental disability is merely an arbitrary legal mitigation ground, even if the defendant committed the crime at the time of the crime in this case.