The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) is not sufficient enough, and the defendant asked about the testimony of this case, and whether he flicked about the issue of settlement of management expenses at the time when he flicked with D’s table and flicked with the Defendant’s boom

“In fact, D did not frank the management expense settlement issue at the time of assaulting the Defendant, and only fling the management expense settlement issue after the Defendant’s assaulted.

In addition, at the time of the Defendant’s testimony of this case, it was difficult to accurately memory as it was eight-month time from the time when the Defendant was assaulted by D.

Therefore, the testimony of this case is not false, but has no intention of perjury to the defendant.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. In the lower court, the Defendant also asserted the same grounds for appeal, and the lower court, based on the following circumstances, deemed that the Defendant testified against his/her memory, and understood the intent of inquiry of his/her defense counsel or that he/she testified differently from the fact by erroneously understanding the purpose of his/her memory or impairing his/her memory.

The defendant's assertion was rejected as it judged that it could not be seen.

1) D states to the effect that “A party, who is a complaint, found the Defendant, has brought about a dispute during the process of confirming the details of management expenses (see, e.g., evidence No. 8),” and there is an objection to the content of management expenses incurred by the security guards E in relation to “D’s management expenses to the D’s management office” in the court of the case at issue.

The Defendant, the president of the management office, made a statement to the effect that he/she was fighting against his/her body while doing a dispute over this issue (see, e.g., evidence records No. 38). On the other hand, the Defendant asserted to the effect that “the Defendant assaulted the Defendant who entered D’s management office,” but the subject case.