2. The judgment of the court below is sufficient in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the defendant was sent to the scene as a matter of charge with the victim who is a taxi engineer, ② the police officer after receiving 112 reports; ② the police officer E and the victim, from the police officer dispatched, consistently from the investigation agency to the court, consistently stated to the effect that the defendant's crime of this case "the defendant, among the Does where the defendant was separated from the victim, prices the victim's breast part of the victim's chest with the victim's finger hand, and the defendant was arrested as the current offender." ③ The statement of the victim and the police officer, as well as the statement of the victim and the police officer, cannot be found to be inconsistent with the mutual statement or the situation before and after the statement, and in particular, the police officer dispatched after receiving 112 reports, cannot continuously arrest the defendant as the current offender and find any reasons for violence after the arrest of the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

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.