2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendants stated that there was some disagreements between G and H’s legal statement on the process of witnessing or reporting the assault; (b) G et al. consistently with the fact or substitution; and (c) the Defendants stated that they would not be allowed to leave the fighting with G et al. to report the fighting to the surrounding people at the time; and (b) at the time of witnessing the said fighting, the Defendants made a relatively concrete statement about the situation at the time, such as the Defendants’ testimony that they would not be allowed to leave the fighting; and (c) at the time of witnessing the said fighting, the Defendants made a statement that “the 1mg of the front flue at the time of witnessing the fighting,” which Defendant B visited Defendant B’s office at the convenience point at the time of witnessing the fighting, and that there was a lack of tobacco sales at the time of the said convenience point to readily conclude that the Defendant’s testimony was “the above monetor’s non-asting of the apartment.”