Judgment

In the original trial prior to the transfer, the Defendant led to confession of this part of the facts charged (28 pages of the trial record) and did not reveal any circumstances to suspect the credibility and voluntariness of the confession statement.

In addition, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as K, L’s written statements, investigation reports (the CCTV analysis report at the scene of the violence), a photograph of the video-fluence, and a diagnosis of April 2, 2020, which were duly adopted and examined by the court below, the fact that the defendant attacked the victim as stated in the facts charged and inflicted serious injury can be sufficiently recognized.

This part of the argument is not acceptable.

The defendant's assertion on the damage of property does not go beyond urbba, but urba that has been parked beyond the victim D while the victim of violence escaped.

Judgment

In the court below, witnessO made a relatively clear statement on the difference between the defendant and the victim D's age and the appearance of the victim, and made a statement to the effect that "at the time of violence against the victim D is the same as the person who supported the victim D," (91-92 pages of the trial record), which is specific and clear, there is no unreasonable or contradictory contents, and there is no reason or motive to dismiss the defendant.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the court below's statement of high credibility, it is recognized that the defendant was damaged by walking the victim G's ozone layer as stated in the facts charged immediately after the defendant assaults D.

This part of the assertion is without merit.

As to the violence against I, when the defendant gets out of tobacco at a smoking place, I only defends the defendant for a dump and a dump, and it is like the facts charged.