The defendant did not act as a guest, and D, first of all, took a bath to the defendant, and d's store (K) by breathing flaps.

At this end, the defendant was also able to live in D's breath.

Accordingly, the mother of D, who is the mother of D, was in favor of the defendant, and the defendant was in excess of D.

Next, E is combined with D, and the defendant's body was divided into the defendant's body and the floor.

Accordingly, the defendant was only the head of E.

D and E were not from time to time.

2. According to the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant inflicted bodily injury upon D and E, as recorded in the facts charged, can be sufficiently recognized.

A. The victims stated in the investigative agency as stated in the facts charged, and there is no contradiction in light of the situation at the time of the statement of witnesses, the statements of witnesses, and the surrounding CCTV images.

B. F and G, a witness of the instant case, made a statement to the police to the same effect as the facts charged, and there is no motive or circumstance to make a special false statement.

(c)

After the case, D and E received treatment in the emergency room of the L hospital, and they correspond to the statements of the victims of the medical certificate issued after the symptoms complaining of them at the time.

(d)

The CCTV images taken by the K-side pedestrian road at the time of the incident were moved by the defendant to the other person (parking personnel), but the defendant continued to enter the K, and eventually, it is difficult to view that the CCTV images entered the K-side pedestrian road, and that it was out of the area of the D.

This is also inconsistent with the statements of victims or witnesses.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.