The defendant shall be innocent.

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not assault G jointly.

B. Sentencing 1 Sentencing 200,000,000,000 won, which is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged and determination of the first deliberation

A. On February 2, 2014, at around 04:30 on February 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) jointly with two infinites C, D, and name-free boxes; (b) at the front of the “F club” group in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, the victim G was demanded to turn off the paths while the conversation was divided; (c) while under the influence of alcohol, the victim was bread while drinking, and the victim’s face and body were carried out several times due to drinking and launching, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, i.e., gambling, internal, internal, etc., if the victim needs to receive approximately three weeks of treatment.

B. The first instance judgment of the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by integrating the evidence in its holding.

3. Determination on whether a deliberation was made

A. The Defendant, since the investigation agency, told C, D, and G fighting from the time to the trial of the party, did not assault G.

argument is asserted.

There is a statement in G, I's investigative agency and court of first instance, and H's investigative agency as evidence that the defendant assaulted G jointly with C, D, etc.

However, G was asked by the investigative agency about how the Defendant and C, etc. assaulted by the Defendant and C, etc. “I have multiple names, and one of them has committed a assault with several persons who have committed the assault.

Only “........”

I also made a statement to the effect that “six degree of organization is accurately gathered when G” at an investigative agency.

H Does ar in an investigative agency, and how G

“I do not know of any question.”

A. The Defendant responded to the ruling that “at the time of considering” without a person, but did not specify whether the Defendant was at the time of drinking and salaking.

I stated in the court of first instance that “where the Defendant was G, the Defendant did not have this entry,” and G.