The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for six months and three million won for each crime specified in subparagraphs 2018 high group 2210, 2017 high group 5026, 2018 high group 2018 high group 218 high group 2018 high group 3069, and sentenced to three million won for each of the crimes specified in subparagraphs 2017 high group 2210 and 2018 high group 218 high group 2069. Since the Defendant did not file an appeal only for the part of 2018 high group 5026 and high group 2018 high group 2018 high group 2018 high group 2018 high group 2068 high group 2018 high group 2018 high group 2018 high group 3069, high group 2018 high group 2068 high group 2018 high group 2018 high group 20618 high group 20618

Although the Defendant clearly stated in the petition of appeal that “The Defendant did not appeal six months of imprisonment and a fine of three million won, and appealed only part of six months of imprisonment with prison labor,” and clearly stated the purport of partial appeal, the Defendant did not appeal the part of 2018Kadan2210 which was not appealed in the oral proceedings at the trial, the Defendant alleged to the effect that “the Defendant did not harm the victim B by assaulting the victim B by chemicalizing the chemical part, and thus there was an error in the misapprehension of facts.” However, there is a possibility that the Defendant appealed only against the intent to appeal the part of 2017 Godan5026 and 2018 Godan218 on the ground that there was no error in the misapprehension of facts, contrary to the intention to appeal the part of 2018 Godan2210.

However, in cases where procedural formation litigation was conducted due to mistake, there is a mistake on the basis of the ordinary person's judgment in order to invalidate litigation by mistake, and there is an important fact (including motive) that would not have done such litigation in the absence of a mistake. Second, the mistake occurred due to a cause not attributable to the actor or his/her agent, and third, it is recognized that the validity of the act is considerably contrary to justice.