The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was suffering from the wall surface and was only with the intention to inflict heavy injury on the F, and there was no intention to inflict injury on the victim or F, and in fact, it was merely that the victim or F was injured by the shock with the wall, but the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant had the intention to inflict special injury on the victim, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the places where the defendant, the victim, and the F were relatively narrow spaces; ② the victim and F were seated above 30 cm, ③ the defendant was suffering from an injury to the F, and ③ the defendant was suffering from an injury to the F.

In light of the fact that the victim's statement or the victim's injury part and degree of injury, the victim's direct injury is not the victim's injury but the victim's injury is not the victim's injury, and the victim's injury is not the victim's disease but the victim's injury is the victim's disease directly facing the disease. The defendant is the victim's fault, and the victim's fault is the victim's fault.

Even if the actor does not interfere with the intentional establishment of the actor (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2813 delivered on January 24, 1984), the defendant had an intentional act of special injury to the victim.

Since the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.