The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) the Defendant merely stated that the victim who demanded a prepaid in cash in a pressure room on the second floor of D private letter or in the second floor is unreasonable over two to three minutes, and “after China’s year.”

Dr. Doz. Doz.

There is no fact that we find the truth, and there was no support from the surroundings due to the dispute with the victim.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the victim did not go to the police even though the defendant saw up to 10 to 15 minutes from the Defendant’s words and actions as stated in the instant facts charged, and she did not go to the police, even though he saw up to 10 to 15 minutes from the Defendant’s words and actions as described in the instant facts charged, and the victim saw the other customer to drink the Defendant.

In the Mabro, there were 10 customers who were no other customers, but who were entering the house, and were only 10 customers at the soup Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro.

Even though the police has been involved, customers who had been in the vicinity by sound of the defendant make a call that they would be able to help the defendant and go to the police officer.

The specific statement was made by the police officer at the site, and the content of the control report prepared by the police officer at the site also corresponds to this, and the defendant does not memory the specific contents in the police.

On the other hand, considering the fact that the victim expressed a abusive opinion to the victim, and the fact itself acknowledged in the court of original instance as stated in the facts charged of this case, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant made a speech or behavior as described in the facts charged of this case and that such a speech or behavior was slick around.

Therefore, the court below's finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is just, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.