The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts merely committed a passive resistance to ppuri by putting the Defendant’s flaps, and did not inflict injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged.

The victim's injury is merely the aggravation of the driver's hard disc during a minor body fighting.

B. Even if the facts charged are recognized, the Defendant’s act is merely a passive resistance, as seen earlier, and thus, the illegality should be avoided.

2. Determination

A. 1) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the victim D’s partial statement in the court below (the defendant asserted that it is difficult to believe D’s oral statement in the court below, and there are parts that are doubtful about the authenticity, but at least, the statement that “the defendant was diagnosed to have suffered injury, such as satisfy in need of two weeks medical treatment due to assault,” and the statement that “the defendant was diagnosed to have suffered injury, such as satisfy in need of two weeks medical treatment due to assault,” can be believed in accordance with the contents of the 112 reported case handling and the statement of the injury diagnosis.

(2) According to each of the records in the judgment below, it is acknowledged that the Defendant had a victim go beyond the floor of the living room on February 2, 2018, as stated in the facts charged, around 07:30 on February 2, 2018, and that the victim suffered from the base and the base of the pelvis in need of approximately two weeks of treatment. 2) The Defendant asserted that his act was not only passive resistance, but also only an assault to the extent that the victim’s injury is merely merely an spawn, or that the victim’s injury is not caused by violence. However, it is difficult to believe all of the following grounds.

(1) The defendant has a right to remain in the investigative agency.