The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant did not price the victim as stated in the facts charged, is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim made a statement consistent with the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court below. The victim made a statement from the investigative agency to the court below consistent with this part of the facts charged, ② the victim’s statement on the major parts of the crime before and after the crime, the attitude of the victim at the time, the price act, etc. of the defendant is specific and natural (it is difficult to accept, since the defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion of objection, as it is based on the facts premise at his own discretion, it is not acknowledged as the premise.) ② The victim's text message sent and received by the defendant on August 20, 2018, stating that "the case was "any case for which the victim made a bridge," and thereafter, the victim stated that he would have been able to continuously mention the fact that the victim was bucking in his own site due to the Defendant's second assault, and the victim's family member made a statement within the victim's family.