2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the victim was physically sealed by the Defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court by selling his/her elbow.

A consistent statement (Evidence No. 21 of the evidence record, No. 52 of the trial record) and 2. Whether the victim’s “the body of the defendant’s arms” in an investigative agency is clear whether the defendant’s arms are isolated.

"................ are certain that the defendant's arms had been satislled.

The phrase "each question of "" is indicated as follows: (a) it was judged that there was no false response as a result of the examination of the detection device on the part of "the answer of "the answer of "" (Evidence 29 of the evidence); (c) the victim was issued a written diagnosis at the hospital on January 14, 2017 after the date of the occurrence of the crime of this case from January 10, 2017; (b) the diagnosis was issued on the part of the hospital: (c) the reason for the injury, such as cage cages at No. 7: the left : the others (patient's statement): the fact that the injury was caused: 4 weeks from the diagnosis date; (28 days from the diagnosis); (d) the above diagnosis document is written as on January 12, 2017, but it appears that the victim was the date of the injury, not the date of the issuance of the written diagnosis, or that the defendant was the one who was the victim of the injury to receive the above medical examination by himself.

In light of the fact that there are no other circumstances to see, the facts constituting the crime of the defendant in the judgment below can be sufficiently recognized.