Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances such as the absence of evidence that F had a blank time exceeding one minute between two videos taken by F, and that F did not assault the Defendant, there is no evidence that the Defendant’s accusation against F was false, and rather, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was injured by assault.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and making a mistake of finding guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that F assaulted the Defendant’s chest part part of the chest on one hand with his arms prior to the taking of the “A” image as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and assaulted the Defendant on one hand on one hand. The Defendant at the parking lot of the Seoul Northern District Court in Seoul Northern District Court: (a) obstructed the Defendant’s vehicle; (b) interfered with the Defendant’s chest part of the Defendant’s chest on one occasion by selling the vehicle between the vehicles; and (c) thereafter, F on board the vehicle taken the “B” image as indicated in the judgment of the lower court.

However, the defendant appears to have been in a very strong state of emotionally.

If F, as alleged by the Defendant, assaulted the Defendant before photographing a video of the part A and the part B before photographing the video of the Defendant, in view of the Defendant’s emotional condition at the time, it appears that F would have made a speech or behavior corresponding to the speech or violence of the Defendant. Such form is not visible in the parts A and B video, and it is repeated that E would have paid money.

In addition, the defendant was assaulted by F to the part on which he entered the bar and the part on which he entered the bar did not know.

One of the arguments is the video and photographs submitted.