The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant, as stated in the lower judgment, has spread the victim over three times more than a garris containing recyclable garbage.

However, there was no causal relation between the defendant's above act and the injury suffered by the victim, and there was no possibility of predicting the result of the injury.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of community service, 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and the legal doctrine reveals that, in full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant 3 times exceeded the Mabro where recycled waste was contained, and the victim caused the 92-day medical treatment due to such act, and there was a possibility of such injury.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The victim stated from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that “A victim had a horse dispute with the Defendant around 06:15 on March 15, 2016, the victim took her flab with her flab and kne, and knenee in three times over her flab, and knee in the left-hand knee., and reported 112 directly on her flab because the Defendant’s knee did not take place.” This statement is consistent specifically and alternatively.

(2) A witness of the current situation.

E also, in the investigative agency and the court of the court below, “The defendant was satisfing the victim on the mast which contains half of the flabbage of the victim by demodation.”

The victim was flicked and flicked in order to catch flick rice, and flicked with the victim.