폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Around December 22, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 23:40 of the facts charged: (b) around 23:40, the Defendant: (c) around the D drinking house located in Ansan-si C, as the victim E and Si guard; and (d) was wraped with drinking and sprinking the victim, which is a dangerous object, and (d) caused the victim to go back one time to the part of the dangerous object, and (e) caused the victim to go up to the top of the ma that requires approximately two weeks of treatment.
2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's fighting match with the victim did not cause injury to the victim's head due to the spawn's illness.
In accordance with this part of the facts charged, each police interrogation protocol of E/F, investigation report (F, E phone statement hearing), and telephone recording CDs exist, but all these are related to the statements made by E/F investigation agencies. In light of the following facts and circumstances recognized in the witness G, E, and F’s legal statement, investigation report, field photograph, etc., it is difficult to believe them as they are, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant was the victim’s head due to the victim’s illness.
(1) According to the G’s legal statement at the time of the instant case, the Defendant stated that “the victim was unable to be deemed to have the head as a small-scale soldier, and as there were many people who had been suffering from a small-scale soldier at that time, it would be accurately known whether the Defendant was a small-scale soldier.” The Defendant’s day-to-day injury was inflicted on the head in line with the Jin-gun’s disease where the same kind of day-to-day I was located. In light of the fact that the instant field-to-day World Cup, small-scale disease, etc. are scattered on the floor and table, it cannot be ruled out that the Defendant, other than the Defendant, was suffering from injuries due to a small-scale illness, water cup, etc. in which the Defendant was on duty, other than the Defendant.
(2) On December 24, 2012, after the formation of the instant case, the Defendant was not examined as to the facts charged at the time of being investigated by the police station on December 24, 2012, and on January 6, 2013.