The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, although the Defendant had a beer mar, the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim because he did not have a beer mar on the table with which the victim was seated, the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, that is, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below: (a) the victim: (a) the police officer called the defendant at the site of G 112 at the site; (b) the upper part of the right side where the defendant was faced with the defendant; (c) the defendant did not deny the victim's above assertion at the site; and (d) the defendant did not deny the victim's right side; and (d) the defendant was able to use the illness on the table, which was placed on the table, in both hands and at the same time, left the victim's interest; (d) while G was displayed in the above table with the defendant's seat, it was found that D did the above act after the victim was faced with the defendant's act; (d) it did not interfere with D's favorable behavior; and (e) it cannot be said that D's injury was caused by the loss of the victim, such as the convenience where D victim was sittingd.

The statement is that the victim stated that the defendant laid the beer and the beer and consistently stated the circumstances in which he suffered the injury on the floor. The defendant is somewhat inconsistent with the location and frequency of beer and beer disease, but there is a part that is inconsistent with G's statement. However, this is time so far.