Around 00:30 on March 14, 2012, the Defendant assaulted the victim E at the entrance of the above entertainment tavern, by putting the head debt of D in the above entertainment tavern, and breaking up a wind-line signboard at the entrance of the above entertainment tavern, and again intending to enter it into the entertainment tavern at the entrance of the above entertainment tavern, on the ground that the Defendant scambling the Defendant, scambling the Defendant, scaming the Defendant on the back of the bar, scaming the scambling, scaming the Defendant on the back, scaming the Defendant’s back, scaming the victim, etc., three times at the time of drinking, scambling the victim, scambling the victim, scambling the victim, and scambling the victim, thereby harming the victim for about four weeks of medical treatment.

Accordingly, the defendant, together with D, injured the victim.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion that the Defendant and his defense counsel did not have any fact that the Defendant did not flick and salphere the E’s bat, such as the facts charged, and the injury of the “flick and flick” suffered by E does not result from the Defendant’s act; even if the Defendant

Even if this is the purpose of preventing E's failure, it is the self-defense or legitimate act.

3. In the judgment, E argues that he suffered from the injury of “the upper part of the first part of the 1st unit,” which was launched from D or F, but E was not capable of accurately memorying the background of the injury, and even according to E’s statement (in the face of 58 of the Investigation Records), the Defendant was at the scene, and thus, the above injury was not caused by the Defendant’s act. In addition, the Defendant’s legal statement, witness G’s legal statement, witness E’s partial legal statement, D, and H.