A. Although the original person C denies the establishment of substantial authenticity in the court of the court below, the court below erred in denying the admissibility of evidence of the police’s written statement against C, even though it could be admitted based on the F’s statement that hearing C’s statement and stating its content.

B. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since the defendant could recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victims as stated in the facts charged, including the victim C's police statement.

2. Summary of the facts charged

A. On November 13, 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed assault to the Victim C (hereinafter “EM”) who works for the Victim C (hereinafter “AE store”) in Macheon-si, Macheon-si; (b) on November 13, 2014, the Defendant: (c) committed assault to the Victim C (hereinafter “AE store”); (d) during the process of drinking with C, he/she took a dispute as a matter of the crum; and (e) caused damage to the inner part, which requires treatment for about two weeks, by assaulting C’s her buck, such as bucking at one time; and (e) tightly cutting off

B. On November 13, 2014, the Defendant who injured the Victim F was the victim F (Woo, 41 years old) at the “E main store located in Spocheon-si, Spocheon-si on November 13, 2014.”

"Along with the lush hand of the ship, the ship caused the injury to the right-free salt in need of treatment for about two weeks by taking off the lush hand.

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment 1) The Defendant: (a) the victim C’s bodily statement, F’s statement, G’s legal statement, injury diagnosis, and damaged photograph as evidence that conforms to or corresponds to this part of the facts charged; and (b) the part corresponding to the facts charged in the police preparation statement with respect to C is that the Defendant was investigated as stated in the lower court’s court’s decision.

The testimony made by F is not that the statement made by F is not written, and the establishment of substantial authenticity is not proven, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence, and ② the defendant C.