On October 30, 2016, at around 06:10, the Defendant: (a) sent to the scene the police after receiving a report; and (b) knew that E and F escaped to the site; (c) went to the face of the victim G (18 tax) who was living in the site; and (d) went to the site, the Defendant sent the victim’s bridge to the next site, such as a crime, etc., for which it is impossible to identify the number of days of treatment for the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness H and G respective legal statements;

1. The protocol of the police statement concerning G on November 5, 2016;

1. Written statements of October 30, 2016

1. The defense counsel and the defendant are denied the facts charged regarding the CCTV closure photographs, the victim photographic counsel and the defendant's argument.

Witness

H's legal statement party friend has been playing friend, and (the defendant was wraping another one.)

The end of this year, which is wurging, has come to fall in a group.

G goes through, (a) the defendant was aware that he was a person who was wraped.

G’s written statement ( October 30, 2016 on the day of the instant crime) was left to the house, and there was no reason for the male who had been folded to the house.

The face and clothes are teared, and the police report. G's face to the person A ( November 5, 2016) is taken several times.

If a witness’s statement, including a victim, is generally consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there is any separate evidence to deem that the witness’s statement is objectively acceptable from an objective perspective. The mere fact that the witness’s statement is consistent in the main part of the statement, such as where the witness’s statement is consistent, and it is somewhat inconsistent with other minor matters, does not unreasonably deny the credibility of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). While the witness G did not have consistently made a statement at the time of facing the witness, it is in this court since the investigative agency.