2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., (i) the victim was at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court’s trial on behalf of the Defendant in relation to the present situation at the time of the instant case, and (ii) the Defendant was at the time of the instant case and at the time of the lower court’s trial, who received the cost of driving by proxy from the Defendant,

In doing so, a concrete and consistent statement is made to the effect that he/she saw his/her flaps, and that he/she was in his/her flaps. ② The victim does not have any special motive to care for him/her in a false manner, and there is no special doubt about the circumstances in which the victim filed a complaint against the defendant. ③ The defendant does not know at the investigative agency that he/she was unable to lock at the time of the instant case and was aware of his/her behavior or words to the victim.

(b) The lower portion of the body is the same until the body is found.

An accurate memory is not required;

In full view of the fact that the Defendant appears not to make a statement on the basis of a clear memory as to the present situation at the time of the instant case, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed assault against the victim by means of fating fats of the victim, such as the facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts 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.