The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not know the right shoulder of the victim and did not have any fact that the victim exceeded the floor, and the court below erred by misunderstanding that the Defendant inflicted a bodily injury on the right shoulder of the part of the victim, which requires treatment for about two weeks, on the right shoulder of the victim, thereby causing the injury to the right shoulder of the part of the victim, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the fact that: (a) the Defendant: (b) specifically stated in the judgment of the court below that “the details of the statement made by the victim and F do not coincide with each other with those of the victim and F concerning the instant detailed matters, such as “the direction of the victim to be pushed away; (c) the Defendant did not have credibility; and (d) even in the case of taking a degree course, such as the salt of the criminal facts indicated in the judgment of the court below, it is not sufficient to recognize the instant charges only with the written diagnosis of the injury to the victim and the medical records of the hospital, which are bound to the police investigation report, and the injury in the judgment of the court below is partly paid by the victim.”

According to the records of this case, the victim stated at the time of the investigation by the investigative agency that "at the time of the investigation," "the defendant was faced with the upper shoulder," and stated at the court of the original trial that "the defendant was over the upper part of the upper part of the defendant, so that "the defendant was over the upper part of the plaintiff's chest, so that he was over the center of the victim, because he was over the upper part of the plaintiff's chest." At the time of the investigation by the investigative agency, the witness stated at the court of the original trial that "at the time of the investigation by the investigative agency, the victim was over the upper part of the plaintiff's chest, and the defendant stated that "the victim was over the rear side of the plaintiff's chest, and the victim was over the bridge" again that "the victim was over the rear."