The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) and did not assault the victim merely because he/she sawed the victim.

The punishment of the court below (the amount of 500,000 won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, namely, the victim C testified at the court of the lower court to the effect that the Defendant was an assault as stated in the facts charged, and according to the video images of surveillance camera video CDs, the Defendant’s act of assaulting the victim, as described in the judgment of the lower court, is recorded on the face of the victim’s bridge by protruding the victim’s hand.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

The sentencing of sentencing on the unfair argument of sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of statutory penalty, within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the first-class sentencing decision should be respected.