The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was injured by the defendant's act, such as that there is no fact that the victim was a victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime, and there is no hole accompanying the joints of the injured part claimed by the victim, and that the victim was injured by the defendant's act.

In light of the victim's king evidence, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although the relation between the defendant's act and the victim's injury is not recognized.

2. The Defendant alleged not guilty of the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment. However, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of the same circumstance as that of the grounds for appeal, on the ground that the lower court’s decision was written from 2th parallels 7th parallels to 4th parallels and 8th parallels of the lower judgment, and in addition, even if it is based on the results of the request for expert examination of medical records at the trial, the result of inquiry of each fact, etc., the Defendant’s act was deemed to have suffered injury identical to the

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or mistake of the facts alleged by the defendant, in full view of these circumstances, since the victim did not suffer such injury prior to the instant case, but such a scam has been newly created after the instant case.

3. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That the "victim" in Article 24(4) of the sentence of the court below is obvious that it is a clerical error in "victim B", and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the