Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of the testimony of D without credibility.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court fully recognizes the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the instant facts charged.

① At the time of the instant case, the father and father E of the victim and the defendant argued the noise problem between floors.

② From the police to the court of the court below, the victim consistently made a statement on the part that the victim was faced with the victim’s flickum due to the Defendant’s flicking of the victim’s hand.

③ At the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the victim told F, who found the victim’s house, that the victim was assaulted by the Defendant.

④ On the same day, the Defendant found the victim and did so. At the time, the victim saw the Defendant as a tree, and the Defendant saw the victim as her flab, and her flab.

⑤ The images of the images taken by the victim on the same day as the contents of the injury diagnosis document prepared by a physician who examined the victim after the occurrence of the instant case also conform to the statement of the victim.

The above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

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.