The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal does not have any fact when the victim C was involved at the time of the instant case, and the victim will go beyond the married one during his mountain.

However, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment (1.5 million won) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the instant facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

The victim is generally consistent in the investigative agency and the court of original instance in lieu of the victim, and "the defendant expressed the victim's desire at the time of the instant case, flicked his hair, and flicked his hair, and flicked on several occasions.

In response to the defendant, the part was broken down as soon as possible.

On the day of the instant case, the police officer found the police box on the day of the instant case at the police box, stating that the police officer “as soon as possible from the Defendant,” and the police officer taken a photograph of the head, spawn, and spawn of the victim’s body.

“The statements made by the victim” can be believed in light of the fact that the contents of the statements are specific and consistent to the extent that the victim is unable to make a statement unless he/she has direct experience.

Although there are detailed differences between the statement made by the police officer D in the court of the court below and the prosecutor's investigation report (the background of the damage and the warning statement D), the number of times the victim found in Qgu on the day of the instant case and the contents of the statement made by the victim to the victim, it cannot be deemed as a significant difference to deny credibility, and the damage and details that the victim saw by finding the earth. D is the reason why the victim had done so.