2. The Defendant denies the facts charged by the victim that he did not publish the victim’s sound bags.

As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, the victim and E’s statement and the injury diagnosis statement are written.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, each of the above evidence is difficult to believe that it is, or is insufficient to consider it as evidence of guilt against the defendant, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① At the time, there was no assault against the Defendant at the time, and E consistently states that there was no physical contact with the Defendant, and that the injury of the Defendant was caused by self-harm. However, in light of the fact that the victim and E received a summary order of KRW 500,000 due to joint injury to the Defendant and the order became final and conclusive, E took photographs of the Defendant, and that they did not submit them even though they appear to have been proven as a conclusive evidence to prove innocence (E stated in the court that it was shown in the police and the prosecution, but there was no record that the investigative agency confirmed it), it is doubtful that the credibility of the victim and E’s statement is doubtful.

(2) The police statements, prosecutorial statements, and court statements of the defendant that “F before leaving the office, E was franched” are consistent with the police statements and prosecutorial statements of witnesses F.

③ The Defendant stated that the Victim did not have any crypical back, and that the Victim was a unilateral assault from the Victim E, and the method, order, police statements concerning the father, prosecutor’s statement, and court statements are consistent and concrete.

(4)