There is no fact that the defendant spits or assaultss the victim's face, such as what is written in the facts charged.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the defendant was taken in the cab head of the victim's taxi and arrived at the destination after the victim was sucked, and there was a dispute as to the spiting of the spiting that the defendant was spiting after the defendant was spiting with the victim's face, ③ since the investigation agency and the court of the court of the court below, the defendant merely denied the crime that the victim was spiting of the spiting of the spiting of the spiting of the spiting of the spiting of the spiting of the spits by the victim after the investigation by the prosecutor, and it is difficult for the defendant to believe that the victim was spiting of the spiting of the spiting of the spiting of the spiting of the spiting, and ③ the defendant was found guilty of the spiting of the spiting of the spiting of the victim.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of mistake as alleged by the defendant.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.