2. Although it is somewhat unclear about the victim's statement concerning the summary of the grounds for appeal, the circumstance of assault, and the part of assault, etc., this is deemed to be a phenomenon that occurred after the lapse of time, and the victim visited H Hospital on April 17, 2010, who was assaulted by the Defendant, and received treatment at the time of receiving the treatment. The victim was provided with treatment at the above hospital for four days from that date. In light of this, the credibility of the victim's statement that he/she received the hospital medical treatment by assault from the Defendant is very high.

In addition, the victim invested money together with the defendant and G in the old city M apartment reconstruction project, but the project did not proceed well and is likely to suffer loss, and the difference between the defendant and G was far far away. In light of this point, it is difficult for the defendant to believe that the defendant unilaterally met with the victim, and the defendant did not assault the victim, and when the defendant filed a complaint against the victim on May 13, 2013 due to the suspicion of fraud, assault, etc., the victim was also accused of the injury to the defendant at the response level, and there is a reason to believe that the victim filed a complaint against the defendant on June 19, 2013, which was more than three years after the occurrence of the case.

Ultimately, even if the above facts charged are found guilty by the victim's statement and the injury diagnosis report, the court below acquitted the victim of the remaining facts charged by mismisunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence.