2. At the time and place indicated in the facts charged, the mother of the Defendant and the Defendant’s East E, D, and D had a dispute due to electric rent problems, etc. Furthermore, the issue is whether the Defendant was tightly broken down on the ground. Furthermore, there is each statement of D and F as evidence corresponding to the facts charged, but there is insufficient evidence to deem that the Defendant was injured by the Defendant’s shocking of D solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, based on the following circumstances revealed in the records of this case. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Defendant’s birth E, together with the Defendant, at the site, alleged that the Defendant did not have tightly broken off the D’s shoulder, and that the Defendant was seated in D, which was maintained as consistent and clear attitude from the front of the police officer dispatched to the site to this Court, following the Defendant’s flicking of D’s shoulder at the time.

B. D submitted a written petition to the police, whether he/she is a citizen of the Republic of Korea or the defendant's Dong E, and then deleted E, and even if he/she is deemed to have been able to know who was well aware of it up to this court, even if he/she is found to have been able to do so (the defendant and E are claiming that his/her street lamps turn on around the night, but the defendant and E do not have any face or physical character similar to that of the defendant and E, and all clothes suffered at the time.