In this case, only the Defendant appealed against this, and in accordance with the principle of no appeal, the part not guilty in the reasoning is also judged in the trial. However, this part already deviates from the object of the attack and defense between the parties and is de facto relieved from the object of the trial. Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment below is to be followed and the decision is not to be judged again.

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not allow the victim to go beyond the victim by cutting back the back part of the victim as stated in the judgment below.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, (i) the following circumstances acknowledged by the defendant's vehicle behind the vehicle, in which the defendant was able to keep the back part of the victim, and (ii) the defendant's son's son was able to use the back part of the victim's son, and (iii) the defendant's son was found to move back the part of the victim's neck back back to the victim's neck, and (iv) the victim stated in the police and the court below consistent with the above video, and included some exaggerations or different statements from facts on other parts of the victim's statement.

On the other hand, the credibility of the above statement consistent with the video may be rejected. ③ The defendant was in custody of other service personnel, and the defendant was only in custody of the victim's head because the victim is likely to mislead other service personnel. However, the above video does not confirm the face as alleged by the defendant. ④