폭행
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is the fact that E, a wife, was involved in acting on a new wall and was able to be abused by the victim who was a customer, and was able to control the victim in the process of suppressing the victim. However, even though the breath in the process of suppressing the victim, the breath of the victim was boomed with the victim, leading the victim into the breath and breath, leading the victim into the breath and the breath and breath, without any fact. The defendant's act constitutes self-defense to defend the victim
2. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that D's statement consistent with the facts charged is reliable and that D's statement constitutes self-defense. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that D's statement constitutes self-defense as stated in the facts charged. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: (i) D's statement is consistent with the investigation agency and the court below as to the part that: (ii) the defendant was satisfed by his own hard field; (iii) D's statement was made by telephone immediately after the dispute with the defendant; and (iv) D's statement that the defendant was inside and outside of the defendant's vehicle at the time of the defendant's assault; and (v) the defendant did not easily talk about E's mobile phone operation at the scene of this case; and (v) the defendant did not easily talk about E's mobile phone operation at the scene of this case; and (v) the defendant did not change his cell phone operation at the scene of this case.