A. As to the facts of the crime No. 1 as indicated in the judgment below, the Defendant did not have any other assault, although the Defendant took head and tear of the victim C’s clothes.

2) As to the crime No. 2-B in the judgment of the court below, the victim D merely fell under the defendant's wife and b, and the defendant did not suffer from the victim D due to drinking.

3) As to the facts constituting the crime No. 3 as indicated in the judgment below, there is no fact that the victim C was blick with drinking.

4) As to the crime No. 4 of the lower judgment’s holding, it is inconsistent with the victim C’s head debt, but there is no face.

5) As to the crime No. 5-A as stated in the judgment below, it is inconsistent with the victim C’s head debt collection before the police officer viewed it as the police officer, but it is not easy to display a food.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one month of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes set forth in the first sentence of the lower judgment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant and his defense counsel argued the same as the grounds for appeal in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail prior to the reasons for sentencing against the defendant. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can be recognized as having inflicted an injury or assault on the victim C as stated in the court below's decision. In particular, the victim D may have the victim at the time of the victim's speecher.

It is sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed physical abuse by intentionally inflicting bodily harm on the victim, as the defendant clearly stated the facts that he/she was receiving the testimony from the defendant, and according to the above victim's statement, the fact that he/she committed physical abuse can be sufficiently recognized. Therefore, the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion to this purport.