The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant is not guilty of her head by her scambling or by her beer's disease.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, the lower court may recognize the Defendant’s head as her head as a beer and beer’s disease.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

(1) A victim seems to have been unable to properly memory the situation under the influence of alcohol at the time. However, “The victim got back from the defendant as a beer disease.”

“The part” is consistently stated from an investigative agency to the court of original trial.

In addition, one victim is consistently not memorying against the defendant's ‘bucking from the defendant'.

“In particular, there is a special exaggeration to the fact of damage,”

It is not visible.

② The witness H and I of the original trial consistently conducted from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the court of the trial.

“ makes a statement consistent with the victim.”

Although the above witness asserts that he made a false statement on behalf of the victim, the above witness merely stated that he was merely an employee volunteer fee of the victim, there is no reason for the above witness to make a false statement on behalf of the defendant until he was punished for perjury, and the witness H was unable to avoid the disturbance that the victim saw in the situation where the witness is under the control of the defendant.

The witness I referred to as "the victim was first able to walk the defendant's bridge while taking the bath, and the witness I started fighting.

It does not seem that the aforementioned witness made a false statement in light of the fact that he/she made a statement to the effect that he/she is disadvantageous to the victim.

(3) A photograph immediately after the crime is committed (the 26th page, July 26, 2016 of the investigation records).