2. The evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case has been proved by D and E in an investigative agency and court. However, D and E are in conflict with the Defendant due to a property damage (the case where the Defendant was a parking problem and damaged the right side of D's motor vehicle) committed on the same day as the assault stated in the facts charged in the instant case. The witness's statement is partly different from D's statement (whether there was a conflict between D and E before the occurrence of the instant case, and whether there was a conflict between D and E before the occurrence of the instant case) and F's statement that is inconsistent with the other witness's statement. In light of the fact that each statement of D and E is difficult to believe its contents as it is, and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone constitutes an assault as shown in the facts charged.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant cannot obtain the consent of the defendant due to his/her absence, the court did not render a judgment of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal