On November 28, 2015, the Defendant listened to F, the same apartment representative of the apartment house, “Isn't have to go to a high assistant principal due to their birth and to raise the level of assistant principal” and talking about his private life with the victim’s “Isn't talk about the other’s private life.”

“In accordance with the terms of “the victim and the victim were humped with each other, and the victim was involved in the loss of food for about three weeks during a short period of time (less than 30 minutes) requiring the victim’s treatment, and was injured by brain-dead, etc. with no open address in the two areas.

2. The gist of the Defendant’s defense suit was that the Defendant did not depict the victim C’s breath.

Rather, the victim defended him first.

3. Direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, such as the witness C’s legal statement, the police statement of C with respect to C, and the accusation of C, are not sufficient.

The records are as follows. ① At the time, the Defendant and C agreed to fighting:

G in this Court, “The two persons face each other, and they face each other, and the Defendant and C were in a state that they face only the shoulder.

It was a distance to the extent that the two people are in contact with each other.

The defendant stated to the effect that he would not tear the clothes when he made his speech, and that he was falbbling or shouldered C.

Even though the century was not limited to C's degree of c.

(2) At the time, the Defendant thought that the Defendant was at the time at the time to cut off with C’s Sc, and said C to the effect that “satis” was “satis”.

G has consistently made statements from investigative agencies, which is the same as the defendant at the time of this court.