2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, it is recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim’s face.

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

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

The victim has consistently stated from the police to the court of the court below to the purport that “the defendant has taken his face.”

The defendant asserts that the victim was assaulted first, while the victim was in the process of avoiding the assault, she was merely sparing the victim behind, and that the legal statement of the witness D of the court below seems to conform to the above argument of the defendant.

However, there was a dispute between the defendant, who was found in his/her residence, and the victim was living outside of the apartment, on getting an elevator and getting out of the apartment, and D was asked at the time when the dispute between the defendant and the victim was resolved. At the time, D was asked at the victim's appearance in the clothes where D was put out, which appears to have been asked in the process of expressing the dispute between the defendant and the victim. The victim suffered the above injury for reasons other than the defendant's injury.

In light of the fact that there are no circumstances to see, and in light of the relationship between the Defendant and D, it is difficult to believe the above D’s legal statement as it is.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that there is a possibility that the victim's wife might have arisen from clothes, decorations, etc. worn by the defendant at the time.

However, in the case of the party, the victim.