Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. The judgment of the court below reveals the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. ① The defendant reported at an investigative agency that the victim, F, and H, who is the birth of the defendant, her mother, was in her mother, and her mother was in her mother, and the victim took care of her mother, and the victim took care of her her face, and the victim took care of her her face (Evidence No. 21-22 pages). The defendant did not make a statement that the victim was her son at the time. ② The defendant did not make a statement that she was her own son at court; ② the defendant stated that her son was physically threatened in the process of resisting the victim's face, unlike the above statement; ③ the victim and F witnessed at the time when the victim were her son and the victim did her son her face, and there was no fact that the victim et al. did not commit violence against the defendant. The facts charged in this case and the facts charged are fully satisfied.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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 decided as per Disposition.