The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal: (a) the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim D, as described in the facts charged; (b) even if the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, it constitutes self-defense or legitimate act; and (c) the Defendant, with respect to obstruction of business, only limited to the Defendant’s obstruction of business by either setting a land boundary by either cutting off or installing a vehicle, thereby preventing the Defendant from impairing the land owned by the Defendant; and (d) the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim D made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court below to the effect that “the defendant was faced with her face”; (ii) the contents of the victim’s photograph and the victim’s diagnosis report supporting the victim’s statement; (iii) I and J also made the victim’s statement to the effect that “the defendant and the victim were satisfing with her bridge and her face, etc.; and (iv) the CCTV image of the scene of the crime at the scene of the crime at bar of this case showed that the defendant and the victim were satisfing with her dubs, etc.; and (v) the victim’s act of attack and defense as stated in the crime at the time of judgment at bar can be sufficiently recognized as one of the parties’ act of attack and defense as one of the parties’ act of attack and defense.