The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant prevented the victim who the defendant tried to remove hump posts installed by him. However, although the defendant did not have inflicted an injury on the victim by walking the victim's left humbucks twice with the defendant's wife, he was found guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below, namely, ① the defendant and the victim did not make appraisal of each other due to land ownership and use. At the time of this case, the defendant was defective to remove the victim's hacket, the defendant tried to hacket with his wife F along with his wife, ② the victim stated the victim's hacketly consistently with the investigative agency to the court of the court below, ③ the victim's statement is supported by the victim's diagnosis of the injury, ③ the victim's statement is supported in light of the victim's degree of injury and injury, ④ the police officer dispatched to the scene of this case, at the time of the police officer K called to the scene of this case, the defendant and the victim were forced to use the land, and there was a statement that the victim was sexual assault with each other. Thus, the defendant's argument that the victim was sufficient to recognize the victim's hacket as well as the above F's defect in order to remove the victim's hack, and the victim's h.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.