No person injured by the act of the defendant shall have suffered any injury.

It is a case where the injured person was issued a medical certificate but did not receive any specific treatment and does not interfere with daily life due to natural therapy.

The punishment of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the assertion of mistake.

On the third trial date of the court below, it was denied that whether the defendant was guilty of the victim's drinking or not, and the defendant did not cause harm to the victim within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

The defendant, at the first trial date of the trial, most of the rest of the assaulted facts were observed, but the fact was denied when the victim was drinking.

In this regard, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant was aware of all the facts charged at the lower court’s trial; (b) the victim’s police statement as to the fact that “the Defendant was making the victim by drinking” was consistent (Evidence No. 1, No. 22, No. 4, and No. 38); (c) the victim suffered multiple injury as follows; and (iv) the fact that “after the police officer was dispatched to the site, the Defendant was sent to the site, and is deemed not to be included in the CCTV video material taken under the former condition.”

In the crime of injury as to whether the injured person was injured by the act of the accused, the completeness of the body of the injured person is damaged or physiological.