The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged, did not inflict any injury on the victim C (hereinafter “victim”).

In addition, since the injured party's wife suffered from the defendant's act is naturally cured without impeding daily life, it does not constitute "injury" under the Criminal Act.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court in light of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim as stated in the instant facts charged. Even if the victim’s wife did not receive medical treatment, it does not interfere with daily life and does not constitute a degree of natural recovery upon the lapse of the time period.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

1) The victim suffered the wound above the upper part due to the Defendant’s act in the investigative agency and the court of the court below, and had drishing and drishing to treat the above upper part.

A relatively concrete and consistent statement was made on the background of damage and the situation before and after the statement.

2) The statement of the victim also conforms to objective evidence, such as the victim’s photographic photo taken by the police officer dispatched to the scene of the instant case (the part of the victim’s injury and the front chest’s quilitic shotology to be observed) and the victim’s body photo taken.

3) 원심법원의 G 병원에 대한 사실 조회 회신 결과에 의하면, 사건 당일 피해자를 진료하였던 의사 I는 피해 부위 사진 상의 상해가 손톱 할큄으로 발생할 수 있는 상해 인지에 관하여 ‘ 손톱으로 그어서 발생할 수도 있으며, 방어하는 과정에서 생길 수도 있음’ 이라고 답변하였다.

B. The defendant's judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing.