The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant, around June 11, 2015, 10:30, did not blind the victim’s brick gate, and there was no fact that the court document was sent to the victim.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the victim is relatively consistent from the investigative agency to the court below.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence are as follows: (a) the Defendant: (i) after the victim started to take a dynamic image with a mobile phone, (i) the Defendant 2 survey articles (a man who has engaged in a yellow flasor and a man who has carried out a yellow flasor) flasing this survey device, and (ii) the Defendant flasing the victim with the view to the victim while continuing to do so; and (iii) the Defendant flasing the brick flasing in his son by moving the flab to his left hand (where it is unclear whether the Defendant flasoring several labs; (b) but after moving the flabing, three flabsings on the left hand of the Defendant, the Defendant flading the litigation documents that were placed in the position of the victim and the victim, and flabed with the mobile phone before the victim and the victim, and (iii) the Defendant flabing the victim’s flabing that he flabing.

4. The diagnosis of the victim is included in the left ske portion, and the photograph attached to the police statement report ( June 19, 2015) against the victim is kneee, in the case of a photograph attached to the police statement report against the victim.