During the dispute with each other on the ground that the mersh of "" was laid down, it was assaulted by the victim by bather hand by bating and destroying the bats of the victim's bat.

2. The evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case includes a statement at F’s investigative agency and court, G, and H’s statement; however, F was convicted of the injury of the Defendant committed on the same day as the assault as the Defendant indicated in the facts charged; in the instant case, he did not make a statement on the fact that he was subject to assault from the Defendant as indicated in the facts charged; G and H, a witness, had been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have the Defendant and F dumped

In light of the facts stated in the statement, it is difficult to believe the F’s respective statements, G, and H statements as they are, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone constitutes an assault against the victim as stated in the facts charged.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant cannot obtain the consent of the defendant due to his/her absence, the court did not render a judgment of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal