In addition, G witnessing the process of dispute between the defendant and the victim, two disputing parties between the defendant and the victim were under the table, and the defendant testified that there was a fact that he was going up with the body of the victim, so there is a possibility that the defendant would have inflicted an injury on the victim at this time.

In addition, according to G and E’s statement, since there is no fact that the victim had any other external force other than the Defendant’s assault, it can be fully convicted of the Defendant’s primary charges that the victim suffered an injury due to the Defendant’s assault, but the judgment of the court below that there was no proof of a crime is erroneous by misunderstanding

2. Determination

A. On October 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around October 17, 2013, the summary of this part of the facts charged (mainly charged charges); (b) around October 17:30, 2013, the Defendant drinking E and drinking in the D restaurant located in Cheongju-si, the victim F (the age of 56) was under the influence of alcohol to enter the restaurant; (c) breath of the victim’s breath; (d) breath of the breath; and (e) breath of the breath’s breath; and (e) breath of the breath’s body

As a result, the defendant added a cage cage cage cages that require approximately six weeks of treatment to the victim.

B. (1) The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that “the Defendant’s chest part of F was small at least once, but did not have any cage cage cages, and there was no causation between the Defendant’s assault and F.”

The court below held that there is no proof of the offense of the primary charges on the grounds that the evidence duly admitted and investigated was based on the following circumstances, and the defendant at the D cafeteria located in the area of the Cheongju-si, the Cheongju-si, the Cheongju-si around October 8, 2013.