The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty solely based on the victim’s statement that was not consistent even though the victim did not assault or injure the victim, where the victim was asked to “dward uratize” and the victim was flated with flat and flatd with flat, and flatd with flat, and flatd with flat.

B. As above, as a matter of course, the victim’s breath of fulbage is merely a self-defense in order to protect the Defendant’s breath and assault by breath, and thus, constitutes self-defense.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: ① the victim made a concrete statement on the major matters of the crime of this case, including the reason why the victim was assaulted by the defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the method of violence, and the circumstances after the assault; although there are a little differences in the detailed parts, the statement is consistent with the whole, and the contents of the statement are determined to be sufficient to obtain the statement itself; ② The victim was investigated by the police on the day of the instant case, immediately after treating the head of the head in the hospital, and was issued a diagnosis in the name of throst, etc.; ② the diagnosis was written on the left side of the body; ③ the victim did not live in the flab of the victim; ③ the victim did not have any flabbbbage of the victim; but, on the other hand, the victim did not have been able to have been satched over several times from the prosecution from the beginning of the witness at the instant site.