2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the victim was frightened by the victim’s breath and frighting in the breath and frighting from the car, and the victim was consistently stated in the process that the victim suffered serious dynamics and frighting injuries on the part of the 2nd fright, which requires four weeks of treatment (33 pages of the trial record), ② according to the victim’s injury diagnosis document prepared by the doctor E (26 pages of the trial record), the victim was fright and frighting from the E hospital around April 25, 2013 following the following day, and the victim was frighted and frighted by the frightth and frighting injury, etc., and the above injury diagnosis document was prepared in a false manner.

It is not found that there is no circumstance to deem that the injury of the victim was caused by the reason different from this case, and ③ the defendant took the right hand hand hand of the defendant in the process of breathing flaps, and the victim complained of the victim's pain during the process of cutting off the loss, so the victim's injury was caused thereby. However, although the doctor E states to the effect that the victim's injury was caused by the accident in the upper end of the victim's injury, the victim's injury would be caused by the accident in the case of an inspection inside and outside the upper end of the damaged part of the victim's injury, and it is contradictory to the defendant's statement (Evidence No. 40 pages of evidence record), and it is more consistent with the victim's statement, so the defendant's argument can be acknowledged that the defendant inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim as described in the judgment of the court below.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.