The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, has obstructed the victim D’s course.

I think that the victim's vehicle is front of the victim's vehicle, and the victim was assaulted by the victim thereafter, and there was no threat or assault as stated in the facts charged in this case.

B. The defendant's balbbling of a victim is a legitimate defense against the victim's assault or a legitimate act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the lower court’s argument of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected all of the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant threatened the victim who driven a preceding vehicle as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case; (b) was fluored or fluored on the road; and (c) was fluored with the victim in the course of b

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim took a balton in front of the victim driving vehicle at the court of the court below where the defendant continued to interfere with the course of the victim driving vehicle with the vehicle at least three to four times.

Since then, the victim and the defendant parked on the sideway and put a vision.

The defendant's body was over the divers of the victim's breath, and the victim got over the victim's body, and the defendant was divided by double hand into the breath's breath.

“The statements made by the injured party” have been considerably made.