The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The victim’s statements are not consistent with the victim’s assaulted part, and in light of CCTV-cap photographs, the victim appears to be faced with the left part of the body, but the victim’s bodily injury is at the right side, so the victim’s statement cannot be trusted.

B. Although the Defendant did not have assaulted the victim, and even if there was an assault, the injury suffered by the victim is not caused by the Defendant’s assault.

2. Determination

A. The part of the part where the credibility of the victim's statement is not consistent is merely due to the difference in expression in the minor part of the part where the defendant asserts, and according to the video of two copies of CCTV photographs (Investigation Record No. 5), it is recognized that the defendant was sealed the victim's body to the left part and was in his/her own position on the side, but it is merely an excessive trend that the victim's body going beyond the victim in the process and the left part of the body conflict with the person's will. Thus, it is not difficult to believe the victim's statement merely because the defendant asserts that the part of the victim's body was in conflict with the other person's body (which seems to be able to compromise the right part according to the conflict between the latter and the victim and the collision angle).

Rather, the statement of the victim is consistent in the process and circumstances of the entire crime, and it is believed that it is considerably consistent with the images of CCTV photographs.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the statements made by the victim as to whether the victim was a assault or injury and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below determined that the defendant committed the assault as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and that the victim was injured by the "a variety of multiples of crimes that invaded the victim's treatment of approximately five weeks" due to the defendant's assault on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. The above evidence was in light of the records.