The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding D and I do not constitute a false accusation, since they are true that they inflict an injury on the Defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below: victim D and E consistently stated that there was no injury to the Defendant; police officers F and G sent to the site upon receiving the report, which were “the victims confirmed their bodies at the time they left the site,” and they could not find out that they were left the site due to the tear or knee cut.

However, the Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant reported once again, visited the scene, confirmed the Defendant’s physical condition, and that he could have known that there were many changes in the status of the Defendant’s body (see, e.g., 52 pages, 53 pages, 71 pages, and 78 of the trial record). The victims, upon the Defendant’s filing of a complaint, expressed that the victims would respond to a false verbal detection test while there was no injury to the Defendant. As a result, the Defendant responded to the truth (see, e.g., the 8th page of the investigation record). The Defendant did not respond to the false oral detection test (see, e.g., the investigation record).

At the time of revocation of a complaint (see, e.g., Nos. 8 and 9 of the investigation record), and after the trial of the first instance, the Defendant used Q(D) other than E to assault himself.

The statement was reversed, and Q, other than E, was assaulted by the Defendant at the time of the police investigation, even if Q had not been mentioned in Q, even though Q, at the time of the first instance trial decision, at the time of the police investigation.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to obtain the background leading to the reversal of the statement (see, e.g., 59 investigation records and 120 court records).