The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant assaulted the victim by pushing the victim over the floor. However, it cannot be deemed that the victim was in a superior condition, such as the left-hand slot body, which requires treatment for about six weeks, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s legal statement by the witness B, the Defendant: (a) was fighting with the victim’s head on June 17, 2012; (b) was fighting with the victim’s head; and (c) the victim was injured by the victim’s bodily injury, such as rupture in the left-hand slot part, which requires treatment for about six weeks; and (d) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows; (b) the victim was conducted a eupture test and MRI photograph at the hospital on June 18, 2012, and confirmed that there was no other accident that could cause the injury of this case between the crime and the diagnosis date of this case; and (c) there was no other evidence supporting that there was no other accident that could cause the injury of this case between the crime of this case and the diagnosis date of this case.

In full view of the fact that there is no evidence to prove the existence of either leopia, the victim lives on the left knee knee knee knee knee, and the victim seems to have no big hindrance to walking if he wears a assistive device, etc., the defendant can be deemed to have suffered the above injury by plucking and plucking out the victim's knee knee knee knee knee kne, and the result of partial verification of CCTV of the party-by-case.

Accordingly, the defendant's status.