The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and misapprehension of the legal principle) is that the Defendant tried to debris the victim’s shoulder while engaging in a dispute with the victim, but the victim did not actually contact with the wind.

Even if the contact was made, the victim cannot suffer the second-class injury because it is merely a light.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant was tightly sealed by the victim's shoulder part at least three times, so that it can be clearly confirmed that the victim was tightly sealed by the victim. ② The victim visited the hospital following the following day of this case and issued a diagnosis letter to the effect that the victim was suffering from a scarbing with the scarke wall that the 14-day medical treatment was needed, and then submitted the receipt (as alleged by the defendant, the victim is deemed to have been issued at the hospital to which the written diagnosis was issued without any special medical treatment, but the victim seems to have actually received medical treatment at another hospital after the date of issuance of the written diagnosis). ③ The victim also received the victim's statement from the investigative agency that "the victim was continuously pushed by the patient's council of occupants' representatives, and continuously pushed the breast part of the chest for three days," and the victim's statement that the victim was credibility for 14 days.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.