In addition, at the front of the above restaurant, the victim abused the face of the defendant by drinking the defendant, dump of the defendant, and dump of the defendant, and assaulted the victim by pointing down the flap of the defendant's flap on the defendant's upper part.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine how the Defendant assaults E.

Witness

E’s legal statement and statement in the investigative agency, and witness F’s legal statement are difficult to believe, and witness G’s legal statement and investigation report (written statement hearing report) are insufficient to recognize the facts charged.

The credibility evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant abused the victim is limited to H's legal statement and the investigative agency's statement. According to this, the defendant's franchisation is recognized (it cannot be recognized that the defendant's franchisation of e).

We examine whether the defendant's assault constitutes self-defense.

E’s face is taken from several times with drinking, the Defendant’s breath flaps, and the face is taken from the Defendant’s flaps, and the Defendant flapsed with flaps. The Defendant suffered bodily injury, such as tearing, flapsing, etc. due to the use of e’s assault, and flapsing into flapsing for about 25 days, and the Defendant was diagnosed as being in need of treatment for 25 days, and the Defendant was found to have performed e’s flapsing against e’s assault. According to H’s legal statement, the Defendant attempted to flapsing over the Defendant’s flaps, and the Defendant continued to flapsing into the e’s flaps, and deemed to have no intent to flaps.

In full view of this, the defendant's flapsing of E is the minimum tangible force to defend the unfair assault of E.