2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the victim made a consistent statement at the police and the prosecution that “the victim was plucked by plucking and plucking up the Defendant’s sloping while facing the right side with the left hand, and later went beyond the same floor,” and ② the victim stated in the court of the court of the court below that “the Defendant took the left face with the Defendant’s hand,” against the investigative agency, it appears to have been by a reduction of memory due to the climatic or time flow, and the statement appears to have been consistent and its attitude and content are natural, and there is no reasonable circumstance to suspect the credibility of the above statement, and it is recognized that the Defendant committed an assault against the victim’s face as described in the facts charged in this case.”

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

(3) In light of the fact that the defendant denies the crime of this case, did not repent of the mistake, did not agree with the victim until the trial of the case, and was punished three times by a fine for violent crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable. 3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is not reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.