consistently stated, the injury diagnosis report and the photo taken on the upper part submitted by the complainant are consistent with the complainant’s statement, and such injury diagnosis report and photo were fabricated.

There is no special reason to suspect, and the witness J of the court below found that the complainant was present in V located in U commercial building on the day of this case, and that the complainant was protruding from the alley on the following day.

However, in light of the fact that the above coffee shop does not exist in U shopping shopping, and that it is difficult to believe that the defendant himself was on the way open to the public, etc., according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant about the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim, but the court below found the defendant not guilty. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

Judgment

A. On September 5, 2014, from 20:0 to 20:30 on September 5, 2014, the Defendant expressed that the Defendant would be punished for the victim F-Maton dispute with the E-Maton located in Busan Southern-gu, which is “human horse-fat-fat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-p

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to acknowledge the instant facts charged only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the complainant’s statement, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) F, the gist of the complainant’s statement and the defendant’s statement, which is the gist of the complainant’s statement, has two parts after having heard the words “human terminal child” from the Defendant.