On December 17, 2017, around 22:30, the Defendant: (a) performed drinking at “C” studio room in Mayang-si B, and (b) carried out drinking with the Defendant’s female-friendly women D (33 cm) on the ground that the Defendant’s female-friendly Gu introduced it without permission by the victim, and (c) inflicted an injury on the victim, such as booming booming a beer, which is a dangerous object on the table, for about six weeks of treatment to the victim in line with the math of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness D;

1. Investigation report (suspect A telephone statement);

1. Recording records;

1. Certificates of injury, medical records, and copies of medical records;

1. The victim's photograph and photograph [the defendant had a wall to the beer mar of the judgment, but the victim was her with the beer ker ker, so there was no intention of special injury.

The argument is asserted.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant appears to have not left the victim's body significantly due to the large width of his body, and the Defendant’s motive for beer and injury, etc. in full view of the motive and degree of the injury of beer, it was recognized that the Defendant was able to be the victim even though he was aware that he was able to be the victim.

It is reasonable to view it.

As stated in its reasoning at least, since the Defendant had dolusent intent and inflicted injury on the victim, he/she should be held liable for special injury to the Defendant (in the police investigation stage and this court consistently made a statement to the effect that “the victim did not have been at the scene E was suffering from injury,” and that the Defendant’s statement on the direction of beer balance is objectively inconsistent with the part suffered by the victim’s wife, and other factors such as the situation before the instant crime, E and the relationship between E and the victim, and the relationship between E and the Defendant are considered, it is difficult to believe the witness E’s legal statement as it is).”

1. Relevant provisions of the Act concerning facts constituting an offense;