2. On the other hand, there are E police and legal statements, injury diagnosis reports, etc. as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, it is difficult to believe that the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was caused by the Defendant’s act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) On October 24, 2012, at the early stage of the investigation, E stated that the police was faced with the floor and not from the floor, but from D, the back head and necked from D.

On November 7, 2012, when the police officer prepared a protocol of suspect interrogation and asked questions as to how the police officer did not have any diagnosis that there was any strings, backs, etc. in the protocol of suspect interrogation, the fact was not consistent with D, and the defendant reversed his statement that he was faced with the defendant on the floor of his ward because he did not go back to the back end of his body, and the defendant's body was returned back to the lower end of his body.

On the other hand, the defendant stated that the victim was faced with the living room floor since the investigative agency and the defendant consistently avoided the victim from being pushed ahead of himself, and the victim did not have the power to be pushed ahead of him, and the victim was faced with it.

Applicant claimed that the above argument of the defendant was not close to the defendant, but the victim got an injury for 14 days by pushing the defendant.