On October 31, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around 21:20 on October 31, 2019, on the ground that the Defendant opened a door and opened it, and (b) on the ground that a person who was locked by the locked of the victim B was humping the victim’s hump to the Defendant, lockedd the victim’s face at a time; (c) sustained the victim’s hump to the hump for approximately two weeks of treatment; and (d) sustained the victim’s hump to the hump to the hump to the hump of the part

2. Determination

A. According to the Defendant’s statement, it appears that the Defendant and B were physically fightings or vagabonds corresponding thereto on the day of the instant case, and the Defendant denied the facts charged that the Defendant avoided or defended B’s arms by cutting off or cutting them into a sponsor, etc. while being assaulted from B on the day of the instant case, but only limited to a vague conjecture that it is doubtful of self-injury against the country that was flaged by B, and thus, it is true that there is suspicion of partial guilt against the Defendant.

B. However, in a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to the judge to have a reasonable doubt, and in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree of conviction, the determination ought to be made on the part of the defendant even if he/she is suspected of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do6299, Nov. 10, 2016). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the instant case, the evidence produced by the prosecutor alone proves that the facts charged in the instant case, which led the defendant to assault and injure the victim, was sufficiently proven to the extent that it excludes reasonable doubt.

shall not be deemed to exist.

1) The primary evidence supporting the instant facts charged is the most.