The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the defendant did not assault the victim E as stated in the decision of the court below, but the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of assaulting the victim as stated in the judgment below. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

The victim made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below several times, and the victim made a statement to the court of the court below, as stated in the statement, the following: (a) “The Defendant continued to take time expenses to go beyond the wind of the victim, and the head was faced with the table of the table of the victim; (b) the victim was tightly and consistently made a statement as to the details and contents of the assault, such as “the Defendant was tightly tightly cafeteria with the victim; (c) the Defendant was frightd with the shoulder of the victim; and (d) the victim was frightened with the victim; and (d) the victim was frightd with the victim’s breath; and (e) the victim was frightened with the president and the employees who had been the victim, and frighted with the victim, the victim

B. G, who was an witness at the time of the instant case, is aware of how the Defendant and the victim were in conflict with each other, but the victim was used towards the client, was faced with the eyebrow, and the victim was faced with his clothes with each other, and in substitution, the victim’s statement is consistent with the victim’s statement.

C. Although F, who is a witness, was aware in an investigative agency that the Defendant and the victim were in contact with each other and were in contact with each other, the victim was faced with this part of the table.

However, the court below judged that F was not able to judge whether the victim was faced with the table of the table, but this part of the court below's judgment and the eyebrow.