2. In conclusion, there are statements (including a complaint) by the victim and the investigative agency as well as the victim's written diagnosis and the victim's victim's photograph of assault as evidence that seems to correspond to the above facts charged.

However, the victim's statement about the specific date and time and place of the victim's assault from the defendant was not consistent since the investigative agency to this court, and the witness E operating the victim's house immediately next to the "D" restaurant run by the victim is at the time of the victim's assault, and there is no string out the victim's statement on the date of the charge of the assault, and there is no string any sound sing or going on in D's restaurant or corridor at the time of the charge of the defendant's preparation for the business. The victim seems to have experienced conflicts concerning the ownership of the "D's restaurant (C building F)" restaurant and the interest payment on the loan obligation with the above F, and it is difficult to view that the victim suffered from the victim's face once due to the victim's assault as stated in the judgment of the defendant, even though the victim took serious desire from the defendant, and it is difficult to view that the prosecutor has consistently received the above evidence from the investigative agency without reporting it to the police, and it is difficult to view that the defendant has consistently received the above evidence from the prosecutor.