2. The Defendant alleged that he was only a bridge between the toilets, and did not inflict an injury on E.

3. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the interest of the defendant should be determined (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151 Decided July 22, 2010). (B) In full view of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to acknowledge the facts charged in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In other words, the statement of E (E is unclear, and the admissibility of evidence is recognized by Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act) of E is sufficiently known that E is in the process of the instant trial, but the contact is cut down and the contact is not confirmed, and the (B) is not deemed to have been repaid by the Defendant, and due to the occurrence of damage caused by E, E suffers heavy injury.

In light of the fact that the assertion does not present objective data to prove it, it is difficult to believe it as it is.

② Currently, F appears to have made a statement that “the current situation is not memoryd” and G police officers G are the same statements.

(3)