The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not flick the victim’s face when she flats or flats the victim’s face, and the wife suffered by the victim can naturally recover and cannot be viewed as an injury, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that it found the Defendant guilty, thereby making a judgment.

2. The degree of the formation of a conviction in a criminal trial should be such that there is no reasonable doubt as to the degree of the formation of a conviction, but it does not require all possible doubts to the extent of excluding all possible doubts, and rejection of a conviction by causing a suspicion of having probative value without reasonable grounds is not allowed as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, where a witness’s statement is consistent in its main part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1335, Sept. 13, 1994); the mere fact that a witness’s statement is somewhat inconsistent in his/her statement concerning other minor matters does not unreasonably deny the credibility of his/her statement.

(2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the victim’s statement from the police to the court below: (a) although there is a somewhat change in the victim’s statement about the detailed circumstances of damage, the victim’s statements are consistent with the victim’s statement about the core facts of damage that the Defendant satisfing breath and fat one time at the right face; (b) within five (5) days after the occurrence of the instant case, the victim was issued with the victim’s statement that the injured part was faced with the right face from the Defendant; and (c) the injured part was actually treated in the external area and dental area; and (d) the victim was actually treated in the external area and dental area.