The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) did not inflict an injury upon the Defendant by threatening the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

2. According to the legal statement of the victim and his father F, who duly adopted and investigated the judgment of the court below, the defendant is in dispute as to the victim's desire to have the wife E in front of the victim's home.

The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, since it can be sufficiently recognized that the victim's body gets into the house and breaking the victim's body so that he/she has inflicted about about two weeks of treatment, etc.

Although there is a somewhat different difference in each statement in the court below since the victim and F investigative agency, it is difficult to deem the credibility of each of the above statements to be denied solely on the ground that there is such difference between the violence at the time and the fact that the violence was urgently conducted within a short time, considering the limitation of human memory. There is a record (record 57-93 pages) submitted as favorable to himself/herself to himself/herself that the defendant goes beyond the victim's identity, and the police officer's questioning to the purport that the victim was assaulted by the defendant. However, in the context of the entire conversation, this appears to be not a statement in the meaning that "the victim was in excess of the victim's own body even if the defendant was not sealed," but a statement in the whole conversation is deemed to be not a statement in the meaning that "the victim was in excess of the victim's own body". Meanwhile, the witness statement in K at the court of the trial witness at the time when the witness and the witness were not in a very good relationship with the above witness at the time.