2. Determination

A. The gist of the argument was that the Defendant dumped the victim’s flaps at the time of the instant case, but the flab had not been pushed down with the flab, and did not inflict injury as stated in the facts charged on the victim.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is found that the defendant was aware that he had flabbbage of the victim at the time of the instant case, but further, whether the defendant sustained the injury as stated in the facts charged by the victim by making flabing blab and pushing the victim, as above.

The evidence corresponding to this is the witness witness witness testimony, each police suspect interrogation protocol against D, D and E, each statement of D's testimony, injury diagnosis statement(D) in the prosecutor examination protocol against D and E.

D In an investigative agency and this court stated to the effect that “at the time, the Defendant was lying the victim on the floor after putting the victim on the breath in the shape of the breath, and caused injury to the victim.” However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the Defendant was in operation to remove a fixed object on the bridge from January 2013, and carried a breath and auxiliary device before February 2013, and thus, the walking was not smooth at the time of the instant case. In light of these Defendant’s health condition, whether the Defendant could assault the victim by means of the same manner as the victim’s statement at the time of the instant case.