The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full-time deliberation, procedural violation, and misunderstanding of legal principles, a detention warrant issued and executed to the defendant in this case was forged, and the defendant was locked at the house at the time of the execution of the above detention warrant, and thus, the detention of the defendant under detention warrant constitutes kidnapping and illegal confinement. 2) The defendant filed an application as a witness to prepare a written diagnosis of injury with the police officer who investigated the instant case, but the court below dismissed the application.

Therefore, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the judgment.

3) In the fourth trial record, “the witness’s statement in D” and “the police’s statement in D” are inadmissible, and “the injury diagnosis report” were made by falsity after the lapse of four days from the instant case, but the lower court considered the above evidence as evidence of guilt. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 4) In so doing, the lower court, upon receiving an application for transfer of jurisdiction from the Defendant, did not suspend the judgment, and rendered a judgment without suspending the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in affecting the judgment.

나. 사실오인 피고인은 피해자에게 라이터를 던진 사실은 있으나, 라이터의 파편이 피해자의 눈에 튄 사실은 없다.

In addition, there is no fact that the victim's timber is sealed by his/her hand.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Judgment of incomplete hearing, violation of procedure, and misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the records regarding detention warrant, the lower court: (a) sent a copy of the indictment to the Defendant; (b) did not serve the Defendant as a closed door, and the Defendant did not appear on the first day of April 27, 2017; and (c) the lower court on May 2, 2017.