The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not cause a large voice near the victim’s return because the victim continued to flee, and even if the Defendant committed such act, the injury suffered by the victim is so minor that it can be naturally cured upon the lapse of time and does not constitute “injury” under the Criminal Act, even if the Defendant did not receive treatment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, at around 18:30 on July 9, 2016, entered the victim D (66 years old) who is an apartment security guard of the apartment in C apartment after the following apartment that the Defendant, a female president, received a written consent for and against the resolution of dismissal of the members of the apartment management committee in the following sentence of C apartment complex where the Defendant, at around 18:30 on July 9, 2016, entered the victim who

‘A loudspeaker, which was cited by his/her hand while preventing him/her from doing so, has reached a large number of voices with his/her return.

As a result, the defendant suffered damage to the injured party that needs to observe about four weeks of the lapse of the four weeks.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, ① the defendant was found to have recognized all the crimes of this case in the court below, and the defendant was in the situation where the victim continued to flee since all of the crimes of this case was found to have been committed more than once in the court below, so it was impossible to make the victim not to have a large voice near the victim, or damage to the victim was not the injury.

As argued, it is inconsistent with the argument, ② The CCTV in which the scene of the crime of this case was taken is confirmed that the defendant commits a loud voice over several times, near the face of the victim, and ③ the victim is the defendant at the investigative agency.