The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is without merit that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case.

In other words, the Defendant did not visit the place of the instant crime in the beauty room only on the date and time indicated in the instant facts charged, and there was no photograph of the Defendant in the CCTV near the instant crime place.

There is no credibility in the victim's statement, the only evidence corresponding to the facts charged of this case.

B. The injury in the facts charged of this case is extremely minor and does not constitute injury under the Criminal Act in the crime of injury.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the facts charged of this case.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) The victim up to January 20, 2017 (A) is an authorized intermediary that operates D real estate in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E apartment building No. 320, 2110.

On November 30, 2016, the aggrieved party arranged the Defendant as the Defendant’s side broker a contract under which the Defendant purchases from P the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I Apartment Complex 206 Dong 417 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) an amount of KRW 460 million (the down payment of KRW 44 million) (hereinafter “instant apartment purchase contract”).

B) After that, the Defendant requested the victim to cancel the instant apartment sales contract, and on January 19, 2017, the instant apartment sales contract was rescinded in the presence of the victim, the seller, and the buyer, who operates Q real estate in the vicinity, and the Defendant (Buyer). At the time, the Defendant was returned the down payment of KRW 44 million from the P.

At the time of this Part, the victim requested the defendant to pay 1820,000 won of the brokerage fee for the apartment sales contract of this case.

C) However, the Defendant is above.