The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is merely a conflict between the head of the defendant and the defendant's nose in the process that the defendant, while having vagabonds due to the problem of parking with the victim, she sees the victim's approach by taking the head into consideration while the victim was faced with his/her face, but she did not face his/her face by taking the victim into close distance, and the victim's head and the defendant's nose face conflict. Thus, such act does not constitute violence but is not recognized as the defendant's intent

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by putting the statements of witnesses E without credibility and the images of related photographs. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and the court below found the defendant guilty on this part of the charges on the following grounds: (a) the defendant parked a vehicle at a place prohibited from parking at the time of this case; (b) the victim who was engaged in volunteer activities as parking management personnel requested the defendant to move the above vehicle to several times; (c) the defendant took a bath for the victim while failing to comply therewith; (d) the victim was faced with a considerable amount of nose due to the defendant's head and the victim's nose; and (d) even if the victim was faced with the victim's head and the victim's nose as alleged by the defendant, it is difficult to understand the above situation by taking into account the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below; and (e) the defendant was found guilty on this part of the charges.

Examining these judgments of the lower court by comparing them with the records of the instant case, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

The defendant is a witness E and a victim.