2. Determination

A. The court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances: (i) the victim made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to (i) the victim made a statement in compliance with the above statement by consistently stating, “The defendant tried to find and enter the house at the time of the instant case; (ii) the defendant was sealed by himself, and thus the defendant was faced with the rear part of the light light before fire hydrants installed on the wall; and (iii) there is no reasonable ground to suspect the credibility of the above statement; and (iv) in the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below, D also made a statement in the investigative agency and the court of the lower court that “the defendant was in time with the victim at the time of the instant case, and the victim was boomed with the light light before fire hydrants installed on the wall of the victim; and (iv) there was no possibility that the victim was injured by the victim immediately after the victim's assault or assault; and (v) there was no possibility that the victim did not have been dispatched to the police officer at the time of the instant accident.

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

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.