The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts is merely a citizen’s face with flaps of the victim, and there was no assaulting the victim’s face as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below comprehensively adopted and examined the evidence at the court below, namely, the victim made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that "the defendant fatdd the victim's fat at around 5:30 on June 20, 2015, and fatd the face of drinking at one time." The victim's statement is reliable because the victim's fat was not found in a concrete, alternative and other circumstances that make the victim unsatis consistent, and the victim's fatd the victim's fat, and the victim's fatd the victim's fat at the time of the case, can be acknowledged unilaterally, even in CCTV video at the scene of the case, the defendant unilaterally fatd the victim's fat face, and the defendant's fatd the victim's fatd face at one time at the early stage, but confirmed the above CCTV video at the investigative agency, and recognized the facts that the defendant committed the crime at the court below also recognized him as the facts charged.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, this shall be respected.