As a result, the Defendant brought the victim with the thrings and thrings of both hand and hand that require treatment for about two weeks.

2. The facts charged cannot be acknowledged because the Defendant’s defense against the Defendant’s defense against the Defendant’s defense is excessive to the extent of the public, and such act constitutes self-defense.

3. Determination

A. Although there is a victim’s investigative agency, legal statement, and written diagnosis of injury as evidence consistent with the facts charged, it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged solely with the above evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) The Defendant is a patient with severe confident escape from a disc removal surgery performed on April 17, 2012 and June 5, 2012. It does not seem that the Defendant could exercise active tangible power against the victim at the time of committing the instant crime, which was about two months after the surgery.

(2) The facts charged are that the Defendant plucked or plucked up the 11st and shouldered with the victim in order to oppose the assault suitable for the victim. However, when the victim scamed by the investigation agency and court, the victim made a statement that the Defendant scamed up the witness’s hand (However, in the court, several statements are gathered) and the statements on the circumstances are inconsistent with the facts charged.

(3) The witness stated in the court that the fingers were plucked, plucked, and did not do so, but did not do so for a period of one week, which is not consistent with the facts charged, and the injury diagnosis is written with the main wound, and thus, it is not sufficient credibility in the witness’s statement that the fingers and fingers were plicked by the main wound, and thus, the injury diagnosis is not consistent with the facts charged.

B. If so, the defendant at the time set up against the victim's assault.