2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court, and ① the Defendant’s testimony made in the case involving the Defendant’s occupational injury and injury to C, which is the purpose of the testimony in D’s order, i.e., the Defendant and C put in the instant order, and C puts the F’s B’s bridge area into hot spring.

In spite of the fact, it continued to hold.

“In the end, F’s image on the left-hand knee is due to C’s own opening, and ② the court of first instance in the above case of the injury caused by the Defendant’s full testimony adopted by the Defendant, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of having been on the part of C’s occupational duties and duties. In the above judgment, the court of first instance mentions that “other third parties than C do not have any direct evidence to acknowledge that they have made any heat using the heat in the Defendant’s front side (kne back part).” This is also referred to as “D has shown the part of F, etc., and opened the Defendant’s f’s body, and C has concentratedly opened the bridge part.

“The testimony of the Defendant cannot be deemed to be inconsistent with the above testimony of the Defendant, and ③ the statement of F and D concerning whether D, such as F, was rheating the parts of D, are inconsistent with the statements of F and D, and F and D enter the experience room.

In light of the fact that the mother, a mother, appears to be a very natural behavior to rhetorize the parts of F such as F, etc., the statement of F and D is difficult to believe as it is, and ④ the Defendant’s statement that “F has so far after the opening of the State,” is not properly understood the purport of the counsel’s inquiry in light of the context before and after the statement.