The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is the fact that the defendant has made a dispute with the victim B at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1-A of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below, but the defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim, and the defendant did not do so at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1-B of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below, but the defendant did not have assaulted the victim B by putting the victim's chest first and attempted not to do so.

2. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, i.e., the facts and circumstances as follows: (i) B used the Defendant’s injury to B at the lower court and used the Defendant’s assault.

A statement was made by the prosecutor's office and the court below. The F also stated in the prosecutor's office and the court below that "the fact that the defendant had inflicted an injury on the victim and assaulted by the neighboring merchant," and that "the defendant did not recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim and committed an assault as stated in the judgment of the court below based on H and G (I)'s statement, etc. However, each of the above statements was not adopted as evidence recognizing each crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, but did not have been adopted as evidence that the defendant committed each crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and (3) the defendant should recognize facts according to the contents of the statement of F's objective location and credibility. However, the F's prosecutor's office and the court below stated that "the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim and inflicted an assault against the neighboring merchant" as stated in the judgment of the court below. Rather, in light of the fact that each crime of the defendant's judgment becomes grounds for recognizing each crime, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.