On February 25, 2014, at around 00:30, the Defendant assaulted the victim on a hand floor one-time basis on the ground that the victim C (ma, 58) was not in operation as a destination at the 222-month light village 214-dong, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, 201.

2. As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, the victim C’s statement in this court, and the statement and statement prepared by the investigative agency are made.

However, the statement of the above C is not consistent with the statement of the defendant, as it was against the defendant, when the defendant met (in the investigative agency, after deducting the chip, the defendant was able to take the chip, and the defendant was able to take the chip for this reason, but this court stated that he was at the time of his chip cutting the chip).

In addition, the Defendant paid taxi expenses to the victim at the time. In light of the fact that it is difficult to understand that the Defendant paid taxi expenses to the victim even in the process of the Defendant’s movement, such as the price of the victim as shown in the above facts charged, and that the Defendant’s consistent change in the victim’s complaint to pay and pay the taxi fees seems to have credibility, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s statement in the above C’s court and investigative agency is difficult, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of the instant case.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.