It cannot be seen that E, rather, assaulted the Defendant, and the Defendant got off the Defendant.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the CCTV consistently states to the effect that the Defendant seems to have lost E by left hand; and (b) E consistently states to the effect that “the Defendant came to go beyond the Defendant’s arms,” thereby recognizing the credibility of E’s statement; and (c) the Defendant’s act of driving away the Defendant’s son during and after the go beyond the E is an action against the Defendant’s assault, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant inflicted an injury by harming the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, thereby erroneous.

2. Determination

A. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor, inflicted an injury upon the Defendant by destroying E.

It judged that there was a lack of recognition.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it is difficult to believe that the statement of E appears to correspond to the facts charged is true, and the video CD and CCTV photograph alone, thereby causing injury to the defendant by spreading E in his hand.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

(1) The defendant has a telephone to get off E parked on the front side of the D parking lot located in Pyeongtaek-si C, and there is a loss of E and Si expenses.

② The following pages are recorded on CCTV in the situation where the Defendant and E met at the above parking lot:

The defendant was faced with each other before this Ministry.