Although it is difficult to believe that the testimony of the court below witness D is inconsistent with D's above statement or it is insufficient to prove the above facts charged, the court below's judgment which convicted the defendant by taking it as evidence is erroneous (including violation of the law of evidence).

2. Determination

A. In the lower judgment, the Defendant argued to the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court believed that the victim’s statement is relatively consistent, and that the victim was 112 reported in a false manner despite the victim’s own possession of the materials from his own will; contrary to this, the Defendant attempted to attract another employee (E and F) in the instant case; and the F, which appears to have been witnessed in the instant case, was the victim’s fee.

Considering the detailed statement about the part that caused a disturbance or disturbance, while making a statement that the victim was unsatisfyed, and that it is difficult to believe by the investigative agency to reverse the statement, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact of assaulting the victim by making the victim satisfy over the floor once by keeping the victim satisfy as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is proper to determine that the defendant committed an assault against the victim in the court below as stated in its holding, and there is no error of mistake of facts.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(1) The aggrieved person shall be under dispute between the police investigation phase and the original trial, the background leading up to the dispute between the accused and the accused, and the situation leading to the crime.