In drinking, when the victim's right side part of the victim's eye was 1st time, the victim suffered bodily injury, such as an internal flag, in need of treatment for about 4 weeks.

2. The gist of the claim is that the defendant was killed and injured by the victim while making a verbal dispute with the victim, and the victim did not have been injured by the victim.

3. Determination

A. As shown in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s partial statement, the witness D’s partial statement, the prosecutor’s protocol of statement on D, the Defendant’s partial statement in the police interrogation protocol, the police protocol of the suspect interrogation protocol on D, some statement in the police protocol of the police protocol on D, each of the protocol of the police protocol on D, some of the statement in the Defendant, each of the protocol of the police protocol on D, the Defendant, and the police protocol on D, some of the statement in each of the protocol of the police protocol on D, each of the written statements on the Defendant and the Defendant, each

B. According to the above evidence, there are doubtful circumstances that seem to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, such as the fact that the victim was issued a medical certificate requiring approximately four weeks of medical treatment from the F Hospital on August 5, 201 to the name of the disease, such as the right and the mouth, etc. at the F Hospital, and the victim consistently states the developments of the instant case from the investigative agency to the court.

C. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., ① the victim continuously testified to the effect that he did not have any snow prior to the instant case in this court, but the investigative agency stated that he did not undergo a physical examination on October 11, 2010 and did not undergo a physical examination (the investigative record 108 pages).