The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not constitute assaulting a victim as described in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant, at the first trial date of the lower court, led to the confession of the facts charged, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the legal statements of the Defendant and the written statement of the victim, and the evidence of the lower judgment, including CCTV photographs taken under the situation at

Although the defendant reversed his confession statement at the court below for the first time and is dissatisfied with the facts charged of this case, the court below and the court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances, i.e., the victim's statement on the defendant's act, contents of damage, etc., is reliable as it conforms to other evidence, such as concrete and CCTV photographs, and the defendant made a statement to the purport to recognize the facts charged of this case in the court below with the assistance of a private legal counsel. In light of the circumstances where the defendant made a confession statement, the defendant's confession statement has credibility.

In full view of the judgment below’s determination, the above determination by the court below can be recognized as legitimate.

Therefore, there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below, and the defendant's assertion is without merit (as the defendant asserts that he appealed to the effect that the sentencing was unfair in the grounds of appeal, it is recognized that the degree of assault of this case is relatively minor.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant without having been engaged in a emerculation during the time limit of the defendant's death and assaulting the victim, and even though the case is not less severe, the defendant cannot be understood by the court below for the reason that the defendant acknowledged the crime at the court below was in the first instance.