2. According to the reasoning of the judgment, the contents of the statement of the police interrogation protocol against E (it may be admitted as admissibility under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act), the statement of the police statement against F with respect to F, the parts of E’s timber, and the images of each photograph taken with tears, etc., it is highly probable that the Defendant was able to catch and trace the victim’s breath, as shown in the facts charged.

However, on the other hand, the defendant statements that he had no physical contact with E at the time since the police, to this court, and that he had no physical contact with E at the time (in relation to E's tear, from the formal trial request, he argued that E voluntarily teared his own position), and the witness F stated that he fighted with E without any fact that he reversed the statement made by the police in this court (the witness F's statement in the fourth protocol of the trial), and in addition, considering the fact that the defendant reported to the police and the police led to the investigation of this case, the defendant's assertion that he did not have any physical contact with E at the time cannot be ruled out.

Thus, the facts charged of this case cannot be deemed to have reached the proof to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and thus, it is not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.