2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim as stated in the facts charged.

1) It is recognized that F and G witnessed the instant case as an employee of the entertainment drinking house of this case, and F and G made the first investigative agency a statement to the effect that they were unilaterally from E, and that the Defendant did not have any fact at the time of E. However, F appeared voluntarily at the investigative agency after making the aforementioned statement and made a statement to the effect that E was not true. However, F appeared in the investigative agency after E’s testimony, while E was the subject of sobriing, while E was the subject of sobriing, while E refused it, while E was faced with a dispute, E was faced with E’s chest, the Defendant was also faced with E’s face due to drinking, and the Defendant also made a statement to the same effect as a witness. In addition, F appeared in the court of original trial and made a statement to the same effect.

3) G also stated that, upon receiving the second investigation from the police, E had the face of the Defendant taken one-half times by drinking, and that E had the face of the Defendant taken two times by drinking, and that E reversed the previous statement by making a statement that E had the face of the Defendant. As to the reasons why E reversed the statement (the first statement is the statement that the Defendant and F made the statement as requested by the Defendant without being able to do so by the Defendant and F).

In addition, G was present at the police station again after the second investigation, and re-Appearanced upon the request of the defendant, but the details of the second investigation are all true;

Since they receive monthly pay, they have been inevitably present;

Defendant.