2. In light of the following circumstances revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court, the defendant's argument is not acceptable, since the charge of this case is sufficiently convicted that "the defendant was guilty of the defendant's face and the second part of the face of the E in his/her hand from around October 25, 2015, was tightly taken into consideration, was tightly taken in his/her body, was tightly taken in his/her hand before the hotel gate, was tightly taken in his/her body, was tightly taken in his/her body, was tightly taken in his/her face with his/her hand, and was tightly taken in his/her face with D's body, and was tightly taken in his/her face with D's body, and was tightly taken in his/her face for two weeks medical treatment."

① From the hotel to the first instance trial and the court of the trial, the Defendant: (a) at an investigative agency, at the hotel, the victim was scambling himself; (b) at the hotel to the victim; (c) there was no time to scam the victim; (d) there was no assault on the victim’s shoulder part above part of the victim E’s shoulder; (d) there was no assault on the victim; and (e) rather, D was kneed by kne, once kne, kneed into kne, thereby falling into the floor; and (d) the victim was scambling by pling, plicking, etc.

G, the husband of the defendant, was not present at the court of first instance and did not directly witness the defendant at the time, but the defendant had sound that he was in contact with E and D.

was stated.

In addition, the actual defendant is coming to the hands saw in the process of rehabilitation with the victims, and the defendant also seems to be between the emergency room and the defendant.

2. However, in the police investigation and the first instance court, D, while reporting that the defendant in the hotel when he / she was faced with E, he / she also faced his/her face outside the hotel, and he / she was faced with his/her face.