At around 13:00 on November 29, 2017, the Defendant and the victim of the meeting room of the apartment of this case were the elderly at the investigative agency (the 41st page, 42 pages of the investigation record). The Defendant, while meeting with the victim and the resident D in relation to the attachment of the notice of election at the meeting of the president of the representative of the occupants, committed assaulting the floth of the victim, who was trying to conduct arbitration from D, due to disagreements.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is that the Defendant and D resisted the Defendant at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, and the Defendant and the Defendant were able to sit at the place where the Defendant were detained, and the victim was friendly. However, as indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant’s breath and breath did not seem to be satched

In addition, the defendant's act is to escape from the unfair infringement of the victim and D, and the illegality is excluded as it falls under the legitimate defense of Article 21 of the Criminal Code.

B. 1) First, we examine whether the Defendant flapsed and shakeed the victim’s breath.

In the case of this case, there is no witness other than the victim or D, which occurred at the closed place.

Thus, in this case, the issue of whether the defendant assaulted the victim's breath by breathing the breath can eventually lead to the credibility of the victim's and D's statements.

In doing so, the victim and D stated in the investigative agency and this court to the effect that the defendant was able to catch and trace the victim's breath, such as as written in the facts charged, and whether the victim and D were boomed with the defendant while punishing the victim and D in the recording files submitted to the investigative agency.

Then, it is confirmed that the defendant made a statement to that effect, as stated in the facts charged.