The victim F (V, 40 years of age) who was the wife of D committed assaulting twice the victim's chest on the ground that the victim F (V, 40 years of age) was aware of the Defendant, while taking a head into account to D, on the ground that the victim F (V, who was the wife of D) committed assaulting the Defendant.

2. We examine the judgment, the F’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged is difficult to believe for the following reasons, and the Defendant assaulted F.

there is no evidence to determine the person.

① The F has been concerned about how her husband D drinks a person who drinks alcohol from his husband.

If so, the other party at the time F seems to have been not the defendant but the other party at the time.

(2) At the same time,

G is a statement that there is no fact that the defendant did not assault F, and that D, the husband of the defendant, did not see the fact of assault.

At the same time, there is no witness's statement to support the F's assertion that there was a total of six persons including the Defendant and F, who were assaulted by the Defendant.

③ The F reported to the police first, but did not at all speak that fighting was fighting, and the F was assaulted against the Defendant. The F was boomed due to the Defendant’s assault.

However, there is no explanation for the reason that the report was not made at the time of report.

(4) F is deemed that the defendant was on two occasions when he was on the left breast side of his breast.

One of the arguments is that there is no confirmation that the hole itself, etc. caused by violence, and that there is no special symptoms even after the examination results after the mold.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.