2. In full view of the records and arguments in the instant case, the following circumstances, namely, ① the statements of the victim and the person accompanying the victim, are relatively specific and consistent; ② the content of the diagnosis issued on February 2, 2017, the date of the instant case, corresponds to the statement of the victim; ③ the statement of the witness H in the lower court that the victim did not directly witness the victim; ③ the statement of the witness H in the lower court that the Defendant did not directly witness the victim, or the statement of the witness K in the trial that the Defendant did not have any frighten or fright to drinking, or that the Defendant did not have any frighten or fright to the victim, even if based on the statement of the witness K in the instant case, the Defendant and the victim did so as a matter of drinking air condition at the time of the instant case; ④ the Defendant

In full view of the fact that such statements are consistent with the statements by witnesses G of the court below (Evidence No. 25 of the evidence record), it can be recognized that the defendant suffered bodily injury by causing the victim to be faced with the latter's body.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the facts.

The defendant's 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.