On June 2, 2017, around 04:25, the Defendant expressed, without any reason, the victim C’s desire in front of the ‘F cafeteria’ of the Sungnam-si Ma, Sungnam-si Ma, the first floor, and without any reason, in the state of alcohol, he saw the victim C to be “We must do so.” The victim’s breath with her hand, her breath, and her breath on once the victim’s breath with her face. On the other hand, when the victim’s faces the victim’s face as drinking again, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. in need of medical treatment for about 21 days.

Judgment

In the instant case disputing that the Defendant unilaterally sent C et al. to three parties, but did not assault C as stated in the facts charged, only C, D, and G’s statements are admissible as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

In doing so, 3 others, such as C, D, and G, were first made by the Defendant, without any reason, who had come first on the day, and went to C, and that D and G were said to be able to turn on on the same way. The Defendant and C were said to be able to turn on the same day.

However, the third party who observed the above fighting and reported to the police was unilaterally at the time of the defendant by three persons, such as C, and part of the fighting was not at all.

According to the CCTV images recorded in part of the above fighting match the above statements, it is difficult to trust the above 3-person's statement as it is according to the following: D, unlike the above statements, was recorded first by the defendant in the face of drinking, and the relation between the above 3-person.

In addition, C took medical treatment at the police station when he was faced with the sleep with the defendant during fighting.

According to the fact that the statement was made (No. 40 pages of evidence record), it is doubtful whether the injury, such as the c's c's c's c's c's c's c's s

Unlike the facts charged in this case.