At around 16:40 on August 4, 2012, the Defendant: (a) got money from the victim’s children to the above church located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul; and (b) had been in dispute with the victim, the Defendant got the victim’s face in his/her hand; (c) was tightly sealed; (d) was satisfing the head, satfing the head, sating the head debt by hand; and (e) was satisfing the head debt; and (e) went beyond the bottom of the chest, which requires approximately two-day medical treatment.

2. The Defendant is arguing to the effect that he/she unilaterally committed violence against the victim at the date, time, and place indicated in the facts charged, consistent from the investigative agency to this court, and that he/she did not commit assault against the victim.

In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 delivered on December 24, 2002, etc.). As to whether the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s statement in the investigation agency and this court corresponds thereto, in light of the following circumstances indicated in the records of this case, is insufficient to recognize that the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone inflicted an injury on the victim at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

1. According to the investigation report(CCTV, etc. attachment), etc.