The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the injury among the facts charged in the instant case, there is a fact that the victim’s bucks twice by hand, but there is no fact that the victim teared, such as this part of the facts charged.

As to the special intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case, the articles carried by the Defendant cannot be deemed to be dangerous articles with a brecover knick.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) In full view of the following circumstances based on the fact-finding of the instant facts charged and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, this part of the facts charged is sufficiently recognized.

The decision of the court below with this conclusion is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts affecting the judgment or by misunderstanding the legal principles.

(A) Although there is a consistent part in the victim’s statement, at least in the restaurant of “E” between the Defendant’s living days prior to several years, the Defendant suffered from the tearing injury. “The core part of this part of the facts charged is consistently stated by the investigative agency to the lower court’s court, and thereafter, in relation to the ex post facto circumstances that the Defendant’s remaining delivery of the Defendant appears in his house, its authenticity and credibility can be sufficiently recognized.

(B) It is natural that the victim’s initial statement at the victim’s investigative agency was made only on April 3, 2018 when five years have elapsed since the date and time of the crime, and there was a change in the expression on the detailed part of the fact of damage, rather, at the time of the victim’s statement, the victim’s statement is not sufficient to appraise the Defendant immediately after the victim was subject to special intimidation from the Defendant. As such