폭행
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant does not drink E, and that E does not come close to the elderly.
There is only a civil fact with fingers.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. On June 27, 2016, the Defendant, at around 07:00, committed assault against the victim’s body part by drinking, while making a verbal dispute with E in the five-day job problems.
B. The Defendant, from the investigative agency to the court, is the victim of the Ethiopia to the lower court.
Although the confidential facts revealed, it is consistently denied that the facts, such as the facts written in the facts charged, are irrelevant to drinking. The evidence as shown in the facts charged in the instant case is only a statement made by the F’s investigation agency that observed the circumstances at the time and the E’s legal statement, and there is no objective evidence supporting the facts charged.
“E’s statement from the Defendant 3-4 was not consistent as to whether the father’s body from the investigation agency to the court is either the body body or the chest’s body, and it is difficult to easily believe in light of the Defendant and E’s dispute or the conflicting interests, such as filing a civil suit against E due to the heading problem, and filing a criminal suit against E.
B. The statement made by the police officer on July 2, 2016, 2016, “The Defendant observed the assault of E’s chest.” The statement made by the police officer on July 2, 2016 was merely recorded in the statement protocol with E contact information received from E at the time of the police investigation into E, and it cannot be confirmed whether F actually calls with E because any additional investigation on F was not conducted, and the content of the statement itself does not by itself specify the time of the assault and the specific form of the act.
. ..