The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim did not have a studio World Cup with the victim, and the victim saved himself.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court to determine the argument that the sentencing is unfair, and the following circumstances recognized, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below are recognized.

The victim has made a concrete and consistent statement about the situation at the time of the case, the situation before and after the time of the case, and there is credibility in the statement.

However, the police called up immediately after the case was brought up by the injured party, "the defendant was broken down with the straw."

“The Defendant made a false statement,” and against this, the Defendant was unable to believe that the victim’s statement was not consistent.

The argument is asserted.

However, at the second time of interrogation of the victim in the police and at the court of the court below, the victim has broken the fraudulent cup, and he has broken it to himself.

In light of the fact that “A statement was made to the effect that the victim had made a statement,” and that the victim appears to have been very interested immediately after the occurrence of the case, the above statement is acceptable.

The defendant's statement has no consistency and credibility as follows:

The defendant, when the police called up immediately after the case, did not deny his criminal act and did not reply to the police's questions, and did not at all assert that the victim was self-harmed. However, if the defendant's statement that the victim was self-harmed by fraud, it is difficult for the defendant to understand such reaction immediately after the case.

After the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant sent the instant case to the chest only when he was under interrogation of the first suspect by the police.

Recognizing that “I would know how I would do harm specifically.”

“In response,” the two-time interrogations of the police and the interrogations of the prosecution.