The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant did not enter the victim D’s office entrance on the date and time stated in the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and that the Defendant’s wife E merely delivers the victim’s office door to the victim’s office.

Nevertheless, since the court below found all of the facts charged in this case guilty, it erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the reasons for appeal, in particular, the response to the contents of medical examination and treatment such as site photographs, and the statement in the register of medical treatment records (J), the court below's judgment that recognized the crime of inflicting bodily injury on the victim by opening the door door of the victim D and causing the victim to go beyond the stairs under the above gate is just, and there is no error of misconception of the facts alleged by the defendant.

A. On June 25, 2014, the date of the instant case, the victim reported that “explosive engineers were pushed down” on June 25, 2012.

In addition, around 4:40 on the day of the instant case, the victim visited J and received medical treatment, and the record book (124 pages of the investigation records) at the time stated that “the other party(s) was sealed with this iron and went beyond the stairs of the bar,” and the victim explained the circumstances of the other party. The victim’s injury part and the name of the injured party was stated as “1) the part of the slick section of the slick section of the sleep, the inspection part, and the 3) the part of the slick part of the slick, the part of the slick part of the slick, and the part of the slick part of the slick.”

This is consistent with the history and part of the injury consistently stated by the injured person from the investigative agency to the court of the court below.

B. On December 12, 2013, the Defendant received seven weeks’ diagnosis from “Ammons fluor salt, etc. on a well-known side” and fixed treatment by the victim.