(In light of the consistent statement that the victim D has consistently suffered assault from the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that it is difficult to believe the victim's statement as it is and there is no other evidence, even if credibility is recognized.

Judgment

As evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case, there are statements and bodily injuries made by victims, witnesses E at the police and the court of the original instance.

However, the court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances, i.e., the victim: (a) the police found the defendant's house in order to obtain apology against the dispute at the K cafeteria (hereinafter "K cafeteria") before several hours of the occurrence of the case; (b) the defendant made a statement to the victim's left side due to drinking at the defendant's house; and (c) the defendant was able to have a statement to the purport that it would have reached the court of the court of the court below; (b) the victim made a statement to the purport that she would have different statements; (c) the victim abused the defendant as the defendant in the dispute with the defendant in the instant cafeteria; (d) the victim did not attend several times after the victim was unable to attend; and (e) the victim was able to enter the court of the court below's judgment in view of the fact that the victim was kel and the victim's kelly kn, and (e) the fact that the defendant was 3) the victim and the victim's knum k were not injured.