2. The Defendant consistently asserts that, from investigative agencies to this court, the Defendant was unilaterally assaulted by E from the investigative agencies to the camping net, and that the face of D does not exist.

As shown in the facts charged in this case, there are the statements in D's investigative agencies and this court, E's statements in this court, F's statements in investigative agencies, and a written diagnosis of injury to D.

On the other hand, the records show the following circumstances.

① At an investigative agency, D statements that the Defendant and E were replaced by each other, and that they were sprinked from E, and that the Defendant was sprinked at three times of drinking to D (see, e.g., title 2, title 39 of the Investigation Records), and E also stated in this court that the Defendant and E were blicking on a blish, but they were flicking from the Defendant.

② At an investigative agency, F, which is a part of D society, stated that: (a) the Defendant was fighting with the vehicle that the Defendant was satisfing along with E; (b) the Defendant was satisfing from the vehicle; and (c) the Defendant was able to blick up with the fating and face when he was fatd.

(see, e.g., Chapter 154 of the Investigation Records). (3) However, E had a ditch between the Defendant and E at an investigative agency.

In addition, it did not mention that the defendant was at the time when he was found to have been able to e.g.

(1) No. 1, title 118, title 2, title 53, 130, etc. of investigation records). (4) As to the fact at the time of the inspection of a false speech detection device, D, as to the fact at the time of inspection of A.