Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's above assertion on the following grounds: "The victim and F consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court below that the defendant left three times the victim's head by beer disease, the defendant's assertion conflicts with the above statements of the victim and F, and G stated that the defendant was faced with beer and beer disease in the defendant's right side of the victim's left side in the court below's court, and it does not coincide with the defendant's assertion. According to the victim's photograph taken the victim's upper part, the victim's wife's body is large and deep, as stated in the judgment of the court below, it is recognized that the victim's head was damaged by beer disease as stated in the judgment of the court below."

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts in the judgment of the court below.

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 since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.