In full view of the following facts: (a) the victim’s statement was made by the Defendant, first flabing the flab of the victim, and the escape of the victim was driven by the victim; (b) it is difficult for the victim to unilaterally understand the perpetrator; and (c) each statement made by E and F, a witness E and F, does not directly regard the victim’s injury; and (d) it is merely that the Defendant appeared to have observed the victim’s injury; and (e) the victim appeared to have been in excess of the victim; and (e) the time when the crime was committed was committed is 20:46, and the victim cannot be said to have high credibility, in view of the fact that each of the above statements made by each of the above statements alone cannot be deemed to have proven that there is no reasonable doubt for deliberation, and there is no evidence to prove it otherwise.

Nevertheless, the court below found the victim, E, and F guilty of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. The lower court consistently stated the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court: ① from the investigative agency to the lower court, the victim: (a) stated that “the Defendant was frightening the victim’s breath and frightening the victim’s breath and frightening the victim’s breath; and (b) E and F, who had observed the situation at the time, stated that “the victim was frightening the victim’s frighten and frighting the victim’s frighten; and (c) all frighting the victim’s frightening around the place where the facts were recorded; and (d) reported it to the police immediately.

Two people take place.