The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that there is no misunderstanding of facts as to the defendant, on the grounds that the defendant is guilty, since there is no misunderstanding or smuggling of the victim G.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court determined that the testimony of G, H, and F, which corresponds to the facts charged, is reasonable, and found guilty of the Defendant as evidence, based on the following reasoning: (a) the lower court explained the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence not exceeding 4th “a summary of evidence” on the second page; and (b) comprehensively taking account of the foregoing, determined that the testimony of G, H,

B. In light of the following circumstances, G and H’s statements are believed to be reliable, and in light of the above, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant used the force of force against the victim and used the force of force against the victim. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion pointing out that there was an error of mistake of fact in the judgment of the court below is groundless.

① At the time of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) opened a door to prevent the victim from closing the door; and (b) anticipated the door to the door; (c) the victim attempted to close the door and was scam back to the Defendant, and the victim was scamed with the Defendant, and the Defendant asserted against the victim.

② At the scene of the instant crime, the Defendant, C, who was in de facto marital relationship with the Defendant, K, victim, or husband of the victim, was in a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant, and there was a vagabonds between the Defendant’s side and the victim’s side. However, the victim stated consistently from the initial stage of the investigation to the instant court that only the Defendant used the victim, and that there was no assault from C.

③ In the process of opening the entrance of a victim, Hdo, the husband of the victim, recognized the fact that the victim himself/herself has pushed down the defendant, and the defendant was pushed down or cutting down the victim.