The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not have any fact when the Defendant was placed at a hump of the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the statement of the victim, S, T, etc. without credibility. In addition, even if the victim was at a hump from the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the injured party’s wife was extremely minor and thus constitutes the injury of the crime of injury. Therefore, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) Since the victim expressed his intention that he would not be punished by the Defendant on February 22, 2019, this part of the facts charged should be dismissed.

B. The lower court’s determination on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the assertion that the defendant did not set the victim at a single salary, the defendant also asserted the above argument in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail.

According to the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he saw 5 times her her son's son's son's son's son's

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B) Determination as to the assertion that the injured party does not constitute injury (the injury of the relevant legal doctrine refers to the injury of the injured party’s physical integrity or as to the physiological function.

In the event that there is no difficulty in natural therapy and daily life as it is extremely minor that is accompanied by violence, it can be seen that the crime of bodily injury does not constitute injury even if there is no assault.