1. On April 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) 20:40 on the 20th anniversary of the body of the second floor of the building C on the ground of the body of the victim: (b) sees the urine of the victim E by telephone to see the urine; (c) d’s house to find the victim’s urine; (d) d’s d’s head at the d’s house; (b) d’s f’s head at the urine and d’s f’s f’s f’s head at the d’s bar; and (c) d’s 2nd d’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s g.

(1) However, the Defendant committed the same assault as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment (hereinafter “the first assault”) and sent alcohol at D and convenience stores, and then talked with D as a tree, but there is only dispute that there was no additional assault such as the statement in the facts charged (hereinafter “the second assault”) against the victim. However, the Defendant argued that there was no additional assault (hereinafter “the second assault”) such as the victim’s statement in the facts charged. ② D when the Defendant was the victim of the second assault and the second assault, it was the victim of the second assault, and whether the second assault was the specific form of the second assault.