An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

At around 04:00 on 19. 19. 07. 19. 04:0, the Defendant brought the victim E (the 71-year-old age-old) in the Cheongju-si, the Defendant, while drinking the victim and drinking alcohol, she went to the victim's room for diving himself/herself, and the victim got sing together with other males on that day, and the Defendant did not drink the victim's drinking. The Defendant first brought the sidewalk block (the street 23 cm, vertical 12 cm), which is a dangerous object at the above main point, and brought the victim's hair twice, and brought the victim's hair back to the above main point, and brought the victim's face back to the escape between va and the above main point, thereby preventing the victim from drinking her face to the victim for six weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of E;

1. News block, photographs of victims, and images of victims;

1. A general medical certificate (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant, as stated in its reasoning, has a friendly relationship with the victim's head with the news block, but they do not agree with the victim's head.

Considering the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the victim, in particular, the victim's statement in the court, "after the time of the ruling, the defendant went to the room where the defendant tried to drink with the defendant, when the defendant was head in his house, when he was frightened, and frightened into the toilet, and the defendant went to the vain, and the defendant went to the vain. In the next vain, the defendant left the left face in vain.

If the face of the diagnosis is not recorded, the fact of damage is clearly and clearly stated in detail. The fact of damage is due to the failure to record the face of the diagnosis.

In addition, there is no motive for the victim to gather the defendant by referring to the fact that there is no victim, such as making a statement that “if possible, he/she wishes to punish the defendant.”

Therefore, since the victim's statement is reliable, the above argument is not accepted.1.