The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

There is no fact that the defendant has been demanded to leave from the injured party because he/she failed to comply with the assertion of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and unfair sentencing).

Even if the victim had made a request for a change from home,

Even if at the time the defendant did a dispute during the settlement of public charges as a lessor, it is not required to leave because he did not have such a statement during the dispute.

The defendant has no record of assaulting the victim.

At the time, the victim's husband, son, son and son was in the family of the victim, and the victim has been in the 119 emergency medical service crew for the blood transfusion.

However, it is confirmed that there was two copies at the 119 first aid activities at the time, and the O hospital sent after the first aid vehicle on the same day did not issue a medical certificate, etc. proving the assault.

The Defendant did not have any intrusion upon the victim’s residence by opening a door door to the victim’s residence and impairing the victim’s residence.

The entrance door of the victim's residence is a special production file in the middle of 2, and the 3,4 stories are always available and continuous, and there is female children, so the victim's statement that the door is opened at all times is not reliable.

The punishment of the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable to regard the sentencing.

The Defendant stated to the effect that, consistent with the grounds for appeal from the police to the trial of the party in question, the Defendant denied the crime as well as the victim himself/herself (Evidence No. 30-33, 44, 78, and 80). According to the first-aid service activity log (the trial record No. 63) of the Seoul Dongjak Fire Station, submitted by the Defendant, the victim on the same day included two parts of the injury, but the victim did not have any provision that he/she had the blood transfusion at the time, and this conforms to the Defendant’s assertion.

However, the statements made by the victim are consistent with the facts charged from the police to the court of original trial (Evidence Records 4-7, 11-13, 66).