On the front side of the Priju City, the victim C (the 69-year-old) who was disputing the issue of wastewater treatment at the Priju City, was able to take a bath to get on the otoba, and the victim was able to get off from the oba, and the victim was trying to get on the her breast part of the victim's breast part, and wanting to walk from the oba, etc., for about two weeks of treatment.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is determined that there is no proof to exclude a reasonable doubt about the facts charged.

The facts charged are that the defendant intending to drink the chest part of the victim's chest and try to get scarcityd to the victim, and the defendant scarkeed with the victim.

As a result, it is difficult to find a scarcity in a scarcity because it is difficult to do so, and in the end, the act of causing bodily injury as a tangible force directly inflicted by the defendant is an act of drinking when the victim's chests.

After being examined by the police, the victim stated that the defendant was at the time of drinking his chest. However, in the court, the victim testified only to the effect that "the defendant was forced to get off the victim's chest at Oralba and was pushed back again to the victim's chest," but did not testify to the act of drinking. The prosecutor mentioned the victim's statement in the victim's police protocol, and stated that "the statement was different from the fact, although the prosecutor stated that he was at the time of drinking the witness's chest," the prosecutor testified to the effect that "the defendant was at the time of drinking," and later testified to the effect that "the defendant was at the time of drinking."

On the other hand, at the time when the victim was investigated by the police, the defendant did not state that the victim was directly faced with the chest at the wind where the victim directly prices the chest of the victim.