The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As stated in the facts charged, the Defendant was guilty of all the facts charged of this case, although the Defendant did not threaten the victim to get a cell phone or to get a monitor, and there was no fact that the victim's cell phone was on the floor, the lower court convicted of all of the facts charged of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,00,000) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant was trying to keep the victim’s cell phone at around 17:44 on August 20, 2013, as indicated in the facts charged, and to get the victim’s cell phone monitors at around 17:44, as indicated in the facts charged, and that the Defendant was damaged by setting the victim’s cell phone on the floor around 18:07 on the same day.

On the other hand, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant laid his cell phone toward his book only, so it cannot be viewed as an assault against the victim. However, as the defendant takes a bath in close vicinity to the victim, the act of cutting off or throwing down hand or goods, as the victim might take a bath, constitutes an assault against the victim, even though he did not directly contact the victim's body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1406, Feb. 13, 1990). Thus, the act of carrying his cell phone on a book where the defendant faces the victim, which the defendant is facing the victim, can be evaluated as an assault against the victim.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's above mistake of facts is not accepted.

B. The Defendant did not deny the Defendant’s criminal act up to the trial. The instant crime is a mobile phone operated by the Defendant.