The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant does not have a misunderstanding of facts that he has lost the victim.

At the time, the victim's loss is small, but only it does not contact the body of the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by making the victim’s left-hand snow due to his/her loss, etc. one time.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

1) The victim made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below on the facts of the instant damage and the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the damage, and the details of the statement cannot be found either unreasonable or contradictory. 2) The security guards D also stated in the court of the court below that the Defendant was seated in the situation room, and the victim was seated next to the Defendant. The same is that the atmosphere was humping and being huming, thereby preventing the Defendant from standing in the atmosphere.

3) According to the photograph taken of the victim’s face immediately after the crime was committed, the victim’s face is confirmed to keep the victim out of the left eye, and does not seem to have been caused by the above body’s self-harm or other accidents. 4) The Defendant prepared an explanatory note recognizing the fact of assaulting the victim to the head of the apartment situation office on the day of the instant case.

B. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the argument of unfair sentencing, has the unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, compared with the first instance court.