The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts) (the lower court) rejected the statements of Q and R more reliable, and the Defendant got the victim informed of the victim H, I, and J by making a more reliable statement.

However, the defendant did not know that he was the victim, and only he was the victim.

In addition, immediately after the instant case, the victim did not immediately have the hospital, the injury diagnosis statement stated that it only requires medical treatment for about three weeks by clinical presumptions, the victim was issued a medical certificate of injury to a hospital located at his own home, the victim did not receive any particular treatment, and immediately after the instant case, the victim sustained approximately three weeks of injury as stated in the judgment of the court below in light of the following: (a) the victim did not have any particular treatment; and (b) the victim was traveling in Spanish immediately after the instant case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defendant's injury as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. 1) On the argument that the Defendant did not interfere with the victim, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., (i) the victim sought from the investigative agency and the lower court to put in the signature book between the Defendant and the Defendant’s chest, and (ii) the victim put in the signature book between the Defendant and the Defendant’s chest.

The defendant tried to pay a signature as a penalty when putting the victim's kn's kn's kn't on the chest side of the victim.

In the process, one's own and one's own will be removed.

After that, he/she stated to the effect that he/she intends to take a signature copy again and flee, but he/she was able to go beyond the stairs because he/she was sealed by him/herself, and that his/her statement was specific and consistent with the circumstances in which he/she suffered bodily injury from the defendant, and ② The reasons why the victim was injured by the defendant in the investigative agency and the court of original instance are specific and consistent.