2. Each statement of E/F investigative agencies and courts that seem to correspond to the above facts charged in the judgment is difficult to believe in the following respect:

First of all, E argued that the police dispatched on the date of the case was assaulted by several persons who committed the Defendant and the Defendant. At the court, E stated that the Defendant’s behaviors threatened himself at the time, and he did not flickly assault the Defendant at all despite the fact that he did not flickly assault the Defendant at the time, and it seems that he flicked only his damage.

E goes to the toilet in this Court.

The statement was made to the effect that the Defendant, who had been in the previous corridor, had been boomed two times, and had been boomed. In other words, the statement was not consistent with the statement made by the Defendant in the corridor to the effect that the Defendant was crypted, and that himself was crypted by drinking and drinking together on the toilet side, and that he reversed the statement that he was crypted by the Defendant, whether he was crypted by the Defendant, whether he was crypted by drinking, whether he was crypted by the floor, whether he was crypted by the Defendant,

In addition, E made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was flicking from a bridge and flicking his hand while going beyond, and was flicking to the above blick, but it is not natural in light of the empirical rule that the Defendant flicking to the blicking to the blicker, etc.

Next, the witness's statement is not clear, and at the time the witness's statement is drunk.