The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as to the facts at the time of the instant case, did not have any fact when he left part of the victim’s left part, and the Defendant’s act did not cause any injury to the victim’s personal injury on the left part of the back part of the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, it can be recognized that the defendant, as stated in the facts charged in this case, suffered injury to the injured party on the left side of the accident due to the injury to the injured party. Thus, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

1) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant also recognized that the victim’s left side at the time of 2 to 3 times her hands.

At the time of the occurrence of this case, since the victim was at the price from the defendant while the victim was in dispute with the defendant, it cannot be seen that he continued to have been her, and therefore, there is a possibility that the defendant was at the left side of the victim's loss and at the same time there was a price for the left part.

2) The victim made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that “the left side part from the defendant had been her protruding, etc. several times, and the defendant had not been her left home immediately after the arrival of the defendant.” The content of the statement is specific and consistent, and was at the scene at the time of the instant case.

E also, in the court of the court below, the victim was well aware of the statement before the occurrence of this case, the contents of each of the above statements between the victim and E coincide with each other, and the contents of the opinion of medical care for the victim of the previous main prison department as seen later.