At around 21:15 on 01:05, the Defendants’ house located in Seopopopo City E, and the victim F assaulted the Defendants first, and the Defendants set up against them, and Defendant A was skeing the victim’s head head, and Defendant B got off the victim’s face several times by drinking the victim’s face, and the victim’s internal diagnosis was conducted for about two weeks.

2. Determination

A. As to the above facts charged, the Defendants asserted that there was an assault by the victim, such as opening a gate while under the influence of alcohol and leaving the gate without permission, and drinking the Defendant A, so there was only a fact that the victim was pushed out and prevented, and that there was no injury in light of the victim as stated in the facts charged, and that the injury of the victim was self-harm of the victim.

B. As evidence corresponding to the facts charged, the victim's investigative agency and court statements are made.

However, the victim argued that when he first makes a statement at the police, he did not appear to have committed the above defendant's injury, and that the defendant's injury was self-harm (the 23 pages of evidence record). After that, the victim reversed the victim's bodily injury to be frightened by assault as stated in the facts charged. The victim appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time, and the victim reported to the police two times of the defect that the victim tried to see and pushed the gate into the gate (the 92 pages of evidence record). Under this circumstance, it is difficult for the defendants to have first reported the victim when she was frighten as described in the facts charged. Furthermore, although the defendants did not frightly appear as a relative relationship with the victim, they did not seem to have been significantly related, they did not appear to have been frighten by opening the body of the victim and opening the door.