The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

There is no fact that the defendant asserts that he/she is guilty of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and the improper sentencing) has taken the victim's head into a cell phone.

Since the victim's act is less than that of the floor at the time, there is no relation between the defendant's act and the victim's injury requiring medical treatment during the second week.

First of all, the victim spits spits the face of the defendant and did not have any physical contact because the defendant spits or spits the victim's face.

It was impossible to expect that the defendant would suffer an injury because he exceeded the victim.

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 changed from the police to the purport that “the victim was in excess of his/her dancing distance in the process of refusing to pay off the diskettes” (Evidence Records 21, 34). However, the victim’s statement is consistent with the facts charged and believed.

The reasons are as follows.

피해자의 법정 진술과 경찰 진술은 피고인이 휴대폰으로 피해자의 얼굴 또는 머리 부위를 때렸다는 점에서 폭행의 대상 부위가 비교적 일관된다( 공판기록 116, 118, 119, 120, 122 면, 증거기록 19, 44-45 면). 피해자가 경찰에서 ‘ 자신이 넘어지면서 바닥에 정수리 부분을 찧었다’ 고 진술한 적이 있으나( 증거기록 45 면), 그 진술이 공소사실과 모순되는 것이 아니고, 한편 피해자는 같은 경찰 조사에서 ‘ 피고인이 휴대폰으로 머리를 세게 때렸다’ 고 진술하여( 증거기록 44 면), 피해자의 경찰 진술은 전체적으로 공소사실에 부합한다.

In addition, the statement of the victim is that the defendant tried to pay the victim's cream, and the victim tried not to get the victim's cream, and the defendant spited the victim's face, and the defendant caused the occurrence of the victim.