2. The Defendant and his defense counsel did not have committed violence by putting a breath of the victim’s breath, since he did not have any flapsing relation with the victim at the time of his assertion.

3. Determination

A. Criminal facts in a criminal trial should be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). B.

In light of the fact that the victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to this court that "the defendant was scam of the victim while scaming the victim's breath while taking the victim's bath," and the defendant stated in the investigative agency and this court that "the defendant entered the restaurant at that time" and "the business owner E did not enter the restaurant because he did not enter the restaurant." However, the above Eul stated that "the victim did not have any frightness with the victim since the sound scam scam outside the restaurant around June 2019," the above court stated in this court that "the defendant and the victim have a dispute with the victim," and that "I am scam, scam, scam," it is not a scambling of the victim's breath while taking the victim's bath to the victim."