The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the act of assault, the Defendant did not assault the victim, but the victim did not have the victim's bicycle so that the victim tried to deprive him of his bicycle, so it was merely that the trokeet used by the Defendant in the process of attempting not to do so.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. In relation to the act of injury, since the victim did not see the Defendant’s lusium by hand, it is merely an inevitable act of inflicting bodily injury on the victim in the process of lusing it in order to set it out. This is an act that does not violate self-defense or social rules, and thus, illegality should be avoided.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the part of the assault: ① The victim consistently stated from the investigation stage to the court of law to the effect that “the defendant had been found to have been a bicycle in his/her operation and had been in his/her arms in his/her arms in his/her arms while taking a bath,” and ② The witness F at the time also stated in the court of the court below that “the defendant and the victim argued about the issue of bicycle repair cost, etc., and the victim did not go against the defendant and the victim, and the defendant did so at least twice in his/her hands,” and the defendant supported the above statement of the victim, such as “the victim did so in his/her hands, and tried to do so twice in his/her diskettes,” and in light of the investigation stage and the court of the court of the court below, the defendant also recognized the crime of violence against this part of this part.