The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant merely sold the victim E’s horses, and did not do so at the price of the cocon part, thereby causing the victim to close the bones. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim is highly probable to deem that the Defendant was at the police to have been treated at the right side of the face of the cane and received treatment at the hospital; (ii) the victim clearly stated that the injury was caused (33 pages of the evidence record); (iii) the victim’s name column of the diagnosis submitted by the victim, in addition to the inner side (39 pages of the evidence record); (iv) the Defendant’s face was at the time of the victim’s face; and (v) the victim’s face was highly probable to have been damaged by the shock; and (v) the victim’s face was unable to be considered to have been saved due to the victim’s injury, other than the assault in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 23. 7.