“Along with the reduction of repair costs, D and argument were caused by the reduction of repair costs.”

On February 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 10:59, around 10:0, the Defendant: “F, as seen above, brought about approximately two weeks back to the left side of D while making fry with D, and, as a drinking, brought about the left side of D and the surrounding side.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The defendant and his defense counsel did not contain any fact when they run away from the left side of D.

B. 1) As evidence supporting the facts charged, there are statements in D’s investigative agencies and courts, photographs and videos containing the left eye of D, and diagnosis reports on D, etc. as evidence that conform to or conform to the facts charged of this case.

2) The Defendant, in the admissibility of an injured photographic image, has been manipulatingd the damaged photographic image, which was satisfy in the left eye of D, and is disputing the admissibility of such image.

In light of the above, the above images were reproduced and printed out of the motion picture of D’s cell phone into the USB camera, and since the aforementioned pictures were not submitted by the cell phone and the USB camera, it cannot be confirmed whether the above images and the original files were identical with the original files, and thus, the above images cannot be used as evidence (see, e.g., admissibility of evidence).

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the above photographic image injury was inflicted upon the defendant. 3) The credibility of D’s statement from the investigative agency to this court.