The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal in this case was that the Defendant could not assault the victim C, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, even though the Defendant did not assault or interfere with business of the victim C.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the grounds for appeal, it is recognized that the court below stated that the defendant, at the police first, stated that he was able to get a dular at the bottom of the victim C (Evidence No. 25 pages), the victim C had the right face of the defendant at the police once, had batd and fatd on the part of the victim C, and the victim C had 3 persons on the part of the police. The defendant continued to have a telephone, reported 3 persons on the vehicle, and did not get off on the vehicle, and he did not have three persons on the vehicle (Evidence No. 33, No. 34 of the evidence record), and the court below also stated that the defendant had fatd his fat and face one time at the right side, and that three persons on the vehicle did not get on the vehicle because the defendant reported and did not get on the vehicle after getting on the vehicle.

The statements in the police of the victim C and in the court below are consistent and false statements, and the defendant also acknowledges the fact that he takes clothes of the victim C. In full view of these circumstances and the facts recognized earlier, the defendant saw that he she flatd the flat of the victim C and flatd the face at one time, and that he interfered with his duties by avoiding disturbance within the vehicle of the victim C. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.