Although I, who is a witness, made a statement contrary to the facts charged in the court below, the court below rejected it and found him guilty of the injury among the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

A. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as alleged in the above grounds for appeal, and the court below directly examined the witness I who operated convenience points in the vicinity of the building where the victim and the defendant living together at the time of the case, and then driven under the influence of alcohol.

The defendant suspected of having reported to the police, ② the victim obstructed the defendant who seeks to board an elevator by driving away the defendant who seeks to go on his house, and during that process, there was a vagabonds between the defendant and the victim, and ③ the victim was consistently abusedd from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the original instance.

(4) In full view of the contents of the diagnosis submitted by the victim, the defendant's argument is rejected and the defendant's guilty of this part of the charges is found on the ground that it can be sufficiently recognized that the victim suffered bodily injury by assault by the defendant.

B. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below recognized all the facts and circumstances recognized by the court below and stated to the effect that the following circumstances are acknowledged based on these evidence: ① The police investigation conducted on the day of the instant case and the court of the court below stated to the effect that “a victim’s attempt to get on and off an elevator constituted three times the victim’s right hand over.”