Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim jointly with C.

2. In light of the judgment, the evidence as shown in the above facts charged is the entry of the police statement about F with respect to the police and the witness G’s legal statement to witness the instant case.

However, the above statement statement purport that the defendant's right of cross-examination is not guaranteed, and the contents of the statement are as follows: "A person who was through the defendant although he did not know that he had first been at the time of his cross-examination (the defendant seems to have been at the time of his appearance) was the same as he was at the time of his appearance, and the defendant was also at the time of his body that he was her hand and her body. There is a new wall, and there is no new wall, and the defendant was at the time of his exactly because he did not fall due to the fact that he was at the time of his appearance, and how he was at the time of his accurately and how he was at the time of his appearance." However, the above statement in the court statement purport that "G considered the contents of the above statement in the court statement with C" was contrary to that of the police, and it appears that "A is true with only one woman who was at the time of his late fry," and that there is no reasonable doubt that the above statement in the court statement in question is correct and correct."

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition with the decision of not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325