The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not inflict an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's judgment as to mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim as stated in the facts charged. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. Determination 1 on the illegality of sentencing is a discretionary determination based on the statutory penalty that takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and there is a unique area for the first deliberation of sentencing in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion but differs from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2) In the instant case, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that the new sentencing data was not submitted by this court, and even considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment was excessively exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the sentencing of the defendant is unfair.