Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim.

2. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that he saw the body of the injured party by making a balbbbbage from the injured party, and did not have the bale of the injured party.

3. Determination

A. As shown in the facts charged, there are statements made by the victim and witness F and injury diagnosis reports made by the victim.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on evidence, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant had been able to breath of the victim’s breath without reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

1) The Defendant alleged that the victim did not have any flabbbage, and observed the situation at the time.

G clearly states to the effect that “the defendant does not have any flabbage of the victim” unlike the victim and witness F, unlike victim and witness F.

Although G appears to have a relationship with the defendant more than the victim, there is no other circumstance to deem that the statement of G is more reliable than the statement of the victim and the F.

2) Rather, considering the following circumstances, F’s statement is difficult to believe as it is.

① The F seems to have a more friendship with the victim than the Defendant.

② Meanwhile, the victim was convicted of having been convicted of the facts charged (this Court Decision 2016 Ma1062 (Seoul High Court Decision) and Daejeon District Court 2017No46 (2) decided September 7, 2017) that “The victim inflicted injury upon the Defendant at the time of his monsting the Defendant in the instant case.” The victim stated to the effect that “F was present as a witness in the instant case and stated to the effect that “the Defendant did not comply with the Defendant’s monthr.” However, in each of the above rulings, F.