The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) There is no fact that the victim was committed by carrying metal materials of the Heli belt, which is an object dangerous to misunderstanding the fact (the point of special injury) with him/her;

The body of the victim was flicked by the victim's fighting with the defendant's fighting force as soon as possible.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant part of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as indicated in its holding.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misconception of facts alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

① The victim made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that he/she was faced with his/her belt by the Defendant, and that there was an upper left-hand part of his/her belt. The statement is consistent and concrete in the main part, as well as credibility is recognized in the situation explanation.

When the defendant opens a visit, the statement (which means 114 pages of evidence) at H's investigative agency that the defendant was deprived of the defendant's hand when the defendant was the defendant's hand is consistent with the victim's statement.

② On the other hand, the Defendant stated in the investigative agency and the lower court that he was in his hands that he did not display the belt but did not have any fact, but in the trial of the lower court, the Defendant argued that he did not have any fact that he did not take the belt in his hands, and that he did not have any fact that he did not take the belt in his hands. In addition, in the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion that he did not have any fact that he did not have any fact when he carried the belt with his attorney’s assistance. In addition, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s assertion that

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, has the inherent nature of the first deliberation on the determination of sentencing.