Around 00:10 on February 20, 2018, the Defendant was faced with the victim B on the road in front of the exit 305, which was set off in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 305, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, on the ground that the Defendant was aware that “the Defendant would threaten the victim to dispose of the frighting D,” and on the ground that the Defendant was able to commit several assaults from the victim, and caused the victim’s legs by hand, and caused the Defendant’s injury, such as pulverization of flaver, which requires approximately eight weeks of treatment by cutting down the bridge.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that there was no fact of harming the victim.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in this case includes the victim B, and D’s legal statement and the police statement, the witness witness of the victim. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that a person who has considerably exceeded from 15:49 to 128 pages of CCTV video (a right 128 pages of investigation records) at the scene of occurrence by the prosecutor alone, and even if the person was the victim, even if the person was the victim, it is difficult to see that the defendant was able to take the bridge of the victim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Even if the defendant was the victim’s bridge, it is reasonable to view that such act of the defendant is a passive defense against the victim’s continuous assault.

(1) The Defendant, as a member of an association indicated in the facts charged, filed a lawsuit, such as a general assembly prohibition and provisional disposition, against the association in charge of external business affairs by the victim, and has been aware of about ten years prior to the conflict of opinion regarding redevelopment business.