The vehicle stops in front of the bus stop that finds AA (the age of 19) and stops the vehicle, and gets a chief window, and continuously see A while sitting at the driver's seat, and then openly sprinking the sexual flag with a sprinking, and then sprinking it under below.

2. The judgment prosecutor indicted the Defendant of the instant case on the premise that the Defendant was scambling the sexual organ with a scambling hand at the time of the instant case, i.e., the act of self-defense.

The defendant did not engage in a patent self-defense act at the time, and there is room for the defendant to have engaged in other misunderstandings, such as flaging a bridge between legss, or manipulating Handphones.

The argument is asserted.

As shown in the facts charged in the instant case, AA’s statement in the investigative agency is abundant.

Each investigation report citing a police statement of A, a statement of AA, and a statement of AA is written to the effect that A has taken the form of the defendant's self-defense.

In this regard, AA appeared as a witness in this Court, and the defendant stopped the vehicle at the bus stop, and the chief window was opened, and could see the vehicle proposal. However, the defendant showed that he was sculing with a sculatory hand, and the defendant did not see his sexual organ and did not want to do so later, and did not see it in detail.

was stated.

In addition, it is not possible to memory as to whether one of the defendants was shakingd rapidly or stale the shoulder, etc. caused by such staleing or staleing, etc.

was stated.

In this regard, it is generally impossible to memory whether a person who reported self-defense has committed a self-defense act.