The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not have any fact that the Defendant had a victim with the glass cup, and the glass cup had already been broken before the victim entered the room, but the judgment below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The judgment of the court below and the investigative agency, the victim stated consistently and specifically to the effect that the victim had opened a sing door door and opened a sing door, and the victim got free of the victim's interest. The victim had been in the process of calculating one hour after the Defendant and his sing on the singing room, and the police was unable to bring any disturbance, such as reporting to the police.

The injured party submitted to the court below a written agreement and confirmation of facts to the effect that the injured party was not a favorable cup, but a glass cup was broken off due to the employee's body. However, the written agreement and confirmation of facts are only signed by the defendant in the document written in the same vice language. According to the victim's legal statement in the court below, it is difficult to believe its contents as it is, and the statement of the court below and the investigative agency's statement seems to be credibility.

F at the time of singing with the Defendant, written a confirmation of the fact that the Defendant did not have any fact that the Defendant got a victim of the glass cup, and the Defendant and F had two female employees singing and drinking, and that the glass cup, which was at the end of the consignor, was broken away from the employees’ body. However, according to the field photograph taken by the police officer at the time of sending, according to the on-site photograph taken by the police officer, it is only in the vicinity of the door, and it is difficult to believe that the said confirmation document does not conform to objective evidence, and it is difficult to believe that it does not conform to objective evidence.

In light of the court below's statement of the victim with credibility and the statement of investigation agency, the defendant is dangerous as stated in the crime of this case.