The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, even though the length of the grounds for appeal in this case was not a plucker or plucker of C merely engaged in the flash of C in order to mislead the defendant into the head debt of the defendant, and the defendant did not pluck up the flash of C.

2. Following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① although there is a little difference between the investigation agency and the court below as to the facts of the injury inflicted by the defendant at the investigation agency and the court below, C has consistently stated the detailed and detailed statement, ② C has received the diagnosis of the injury at the hospital following the occurrence of the instant case, and ③ has clearly indicated the injury level and degree in the injury diagnosis document as “satisfe-bat-bat.” In addition, even in the photographs taken by the two descendants following the following day of the instant case, the situation where the injury was caused by the Defendant, even though the degree of the injury did not exceed the degree that the injury occurred in order to correct, ④ the Defendant unilaterally asserted that the instant text message was used to obtain a favorable judgment in the case between the defendant and D, but, on February 2, 2012, the Defendant can be seen as having unilaterally stored the Defendant’s medical certificate and the Defendant’s text message on the day of the instant case, and thus, it can be seen that C had never been issued with C’s/her photograph on February 131.