The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) does not exist in the fact that the Defendant prices the person who suffered from drinking, and there is no evidence to prove that the above injury was caused by the Defendant’s act even if the victim suffered from tear or was injured by the victim, and there is no evidence to prove that the above injury was caused by the Defendant’s act, unlike the initial statement in the investigative agency, and the victim testified to the effect that there was no fact that the victim did not meet the Defendant’s test differently from the initial statement in the court below at the time of the instant case. In light of the above, there

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim made a statement to the effect that there is no fact that the defendant's test does not correspond to the defendant's test at the court of the court below, but this statement was made on October 18, 2017 after the victim, who was well aware of the relationship with the defendant in the middle line, submitted a written application for punishment (the face No. 14 of the trial record) with the defendant on October 18, 2017, and submitted a written statement to the effect that the defendant was not punished, and thus it is difficult to believe it as it is. (ii) The victim reported the accident to the 112 witness at the site of the court of the court of the court below, i.e., the court of the court of the court below, stating that the victim's statement was inconsistent with the defendant'

The question “...” clearly stated that the above F is a witness in an objective position without any interest with the Defendant and the victim, and the above statement is highly reliable.

It appears that some of the above F's statements were unclear, but its overall purport was that the site was difficult at the time of the incident.