As a result, the defendant suffered bodily injury, such as light blood transfusion, etc. from the victim.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. The Defendant alleged the method of violence, not by holding the victim’s boat out, but only marked buckbucks.

B. The causal relationship and predictability assertion ① The Defendant’s act was merely passive resistance, and the place was also fluium in the house with fluium, and thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as having taken place as an unknown person. Rather, the Defendant’s act did not constitute a causal relationship between assault and bodily injury, given that the Defendant’s act fell away from the course of treatment for injection treatment in the FG medical clinic (hereinafter “F Hospital”). As such, there was no causal relationship between assault and bodily injury.

(2) In light of the background and degree of the Defendant’s act, the place of accident, etc., the Defendant could not have predicted that his/her assault would result in an injury, such as light of the victim’s cryposis.

C. At the time of the instant case’s assertion of self-defense, the victim strongly left the Defendant’s head debt by drinking alcohol, and the Defendant’s act of assaulting the victim is dismissed as self-defense.

3. According to the testimony of the witness G who is the witness of the instant crime, who has observed the situation near the scene of the crime, and is satisfe to a certain extent, the Defendant is recognized to have broken down the victim's vessel one time to the right edge, such as the date, time, place specified in the facts charged, and at the same place as the facts charged.