Each injury diagnosis submitted in this case does not coincide with the victim's statement and does not include the causes, dates, etc. of injury consistent with the victim's statement, and thus there is no probative value due to circumstances to suspect objectivity and credibility.

There is no record received by the injured person after the diagnosis of injury.

The statements of victims and witnesses cannot be believed to be consistent.

The lower court also denied the crime of injury, assault, and destruction of the windows of the victims of this case, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the charges on the following grounds: (a) in light of the following: (b) the victim D’s statement is consistent with the specific and important part; (c) the medical certificate that conforms to the above statement; (d) the medical certificate; (e) the certificate of admission and discharge; (e) the contents of the 112 declaration; and (iii) the Defendant made and made each letter that recognizes the fact of repeated assault to the victim D; and (e) the Defendant made and made repeatedly a statement that recognizes the victim D’s statement

In light of the fact-finding results of the trial court's inquiry about R&D council members, Gyeongnam-do Medical Center, and medical corporations Hyundai Hospital, the evidence and circumstances in the judgment of the court below and the following circumstances, i.e., (i) if the defendant was aware of the victim D's face due to drinking, the possibility that the above victim could see the face and see the victim's face, and (ii) it is always possible to see the victim's eye or ear from the face.

only if the statement has been made, the statement is consistent with the description of the injury diagnosis report, and thus credibility is deemed credibility.

It is not to be seen, and ② The date and causes of injury are not the same as the statement of the victim D.