The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant only had a verbal dispute with the victim F and did not have any fact, and even if not, the injury that the victim sustained does not constitute “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, but the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, which erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below:

The victim, as consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, consistently stated, “The Defendant was waiting to the signal at the time of the instant case, and was sitting ahead of the driver’s seat, and the Defendant’s vehicle was able to open a window and take a bath to her in relation to the career interference problem that existed immediately before the opening of the window.” The Defendant, who then opened the window to her own vehicle and she was able to see why she was her own car and she was hicked.” The Defendant was able to write the window at her own window, and the Defendant was able to write the window one time to her face part outside the face by opening the window. The Defendant closed the window by leaving the window after that time, the Defendant continued to open the driver’s seat, and reported the victim’s face immediately after that time in light of the victim’s statement that the victim’s statement was not directly experienced, to the extent that it was consistent with the victim’s oral statement and the victim’s face to the extent that it actually received the victim’s statement.”

On the other hand, the victim received medical treatment and drug treatment at the hospital on the day of the instant case, and thereafter.