The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not inflict an injury on the victim.

B. The Defendant, at the first trial date, asserted only the mistake of facts on the grounds of appeal. However, the petition of appeal submitted on February 6, 2017, submitted on the grounds of unfair appeal, is also alleged as the grounds of appeal. Therefore, this part of the judgment should also be determined.

The punishment of the lower court (one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim as stated in the facts charged. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. Determination 1 on the unfair argument of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty. In our criminal litigation law that takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, there is a unique area for determination of sentencing under Article 1.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the fact that the opinion of the appellate court differs from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2) In the instant case, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original court, and there is no other change in the sentencing conditions compared with the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of crime, and means.