The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

On the point of assault under Paragraph (1) of the judgment below, the defendant was able to see the less part of the victim, and there was no saw or walking with the saw of the victim.

Even if the assaulted facts are recognized, the illegality is excluded as a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules of Article 20 of the Criminal Code.

B. As to the attempted attempt to interfere with Paragraph 2 of the holding of the court below: the defendant merely demanded money in caric books, and the defendant did not have any intention to interfere with it.

2. Determination

A. 1) Whether the crime of assault constitutes a crime of assault, this case occurred in the course of the defendant's scambling with the victim under the influence of scambling with the victim. The defendant also stated at an investigative agency that "I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw I saw" (Evidence No. 25) and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, taking into account the following facts, such as the victim's photograph and bodily injury diagnosis statement submitted immediately after the case (Evidence No. 13, 16 pages) are consistent with the victim's assault statement (Evidence No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, so the defendant's above assertion is rejected. 2) Whether the illegality as a legitimate act is dismissed, and it does not violate social rules as a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act's spirit or social ethics, and it does not violate legitimate social norms.