The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing;

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is that the victim's refusal to do so had a sound, but there is no fact that the victim pusheds the victim.

The victims have been tightly with people who want to receive food free of charge after arrival of free food services.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's injury to the victim by damaging the victim beyond the victim was erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s decision on the summary of the allegation of unfair sentencing (hereinafter “fine 1,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of all the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant.

B. The determination of sentencing on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the principle of trial-oriented trials and the principle of directness, there are unique areas of the first instance court in the determination of sentencing

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 23. 7.