The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not assault C with a victim who is operating a taxi, as described in the facts charged.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the facts that the Defendant used the victim while driving a taxi can be fully recognized as having assaulted the victim as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The victim made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the purport that “The victim made a statement to the effect that “The victim was drinkingly on the part of the defendant, while he was carrying the defendant on board a taxi in the upstream of the road tunnel,” and that the statement was consistent with the specific and main part of the statement, and thus credibility exists.

B. The Defendant appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time (According to the police interrogation protocol of the Defendant, immediately after the instant case, the possibility that the Defendant could not accurately memory the situation at the time of the instant case cannot be ruled out. (The police interrogation protocol of the Defendant, immediately after the instant case, she snife a large amount of smells to the Defendant, the Defendant spawned a large amount, spawned a large amount in the state of interest, or spawned an investigator’s book,

C. A witness E of the lower court, who observed a situation after the victim’s taxi stopped immediately after the instant case, stated to the effect that “the Defendant, after stopping, made a large number of remarks and intimidation remarks to the taxi driver, obstructed the taxi, and the taxi was able to take a bath while getting off the taxi and take a hand off the taxi.”

Although E did not directly witness the scene of assault by the victim, according to its statement, the defendant showed considerable violent tendency at the time.

The defendant is the defendant's right to metres from the court of original instance due to his act in the court of original instance.