The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not have any contact with the victim’s body.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of a fine of two million won imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts (the point of assault among the facts charged in the instant case)

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below on the part of the remaining assault except the part as stated in Paragraph (b) above, the facts of the Defendant’s assault as stated in this part of the facts charged can be fully acknowledged. Thus, the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts in this part of the lower court and adversely affecting the conclusion of

This part of the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The victim made a statement at the police that corresponds to this part of the facts charged, stating that “In the course of a dispute with the Defendant who was living in the village bus, the Defendant was satisfing the victim’s satisfing with his arms seated with his arms, fating the fat at the apartment stop, leading the victim into the bus, leading him into the bus, leading him into the bus, leading him, etc.” The victim made a statement to the effect that it corresponds to this part of the facts charged. The content of the statement is specific enough to make it impossible to make a statement without actual experience.

② The article that driven a village bus at the time of the instant case also used telephone conversations with the police officer in charge, and the Defendant stated that “the Defendant was sprinking the victim’s breath by cutting balth, and cutting down the victim’s balth with his arms,” which corresponds to the facts charged in this part.

(No. 48).