The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was able to see the victim’s inner part of the floor at the entrance of the lower court at the time of the instant case, at one time, with the victim’s inner part of the floor. The Defendant was able to walk the victim’s vessel once due to an outbreak, but did not look at the victim in a

Defendant’s assault of the instant case caused the victim’s boness;

It is difficult to see it.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts: (i) At the time of the instant case, the victim was seated in the toilet in order to avoid the disturbance by the victim; (ii) the Defendant, depending on the Defendant, was faced with the wall by drinking knee face, knee face, and knee face by hand.

Statement and the situation in which the head is faced with the wall in the toilet is not well memory.

The statements made by the victim are specific and natural so that the credibility of the statements is high.

(2) Saw or customer H who observed the situation at the time is deemed to have been a witness, and us’s “Irrrrrrish.”

“Along with the sound as a male toilet, the Defendant was able to take a slowly, and the victim resisted to the face and resisted so that he was able not to be able to sit. He entered the toilet and she was the face of the victim by drinking by the horse and the Defendant.

진술하고, 피고인을 말려 화장실 밖으로 데리고 간 이후에도 피고인이 주먹으로 피해자의 얼굴을 때리고, 발로 피해자의 배 부위를 걷어찼다고 진술하였는바, 이는 피해자의 진술 및 공소사실에 부합하는 점, ③ 한편 피고인은 화장실 안에서는 피해자를 때린 적이 없다고 주장하지만, 수사기관에서는 화장실 안에서...