The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On July 30, 201, the summary of the facts charged: (a) around 17:30 on July 30, 201, the Defendant: (b) at the Defendant’s Saturdays greenhouse factory site in Chungcheongnam-gun, Geumsan-gun; (c) the Defendant considered that F was unable to use agricultural produce to the Defendant’s husband G; (d) was pushed back into the land; and (e) did not turn out to the Defendant’s heavy desire; and (e) re-explosing and resisting the Defendant without taking a part of his desire; (e) f was at the right end of the dispute; and (e) took part of F’s chest toward the right end of the dispute for about four weeks; and (e) laid off the 11-day fage c

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant's elbows of the defendant in the process of emphasizing the F's sound to see that it is about to see the F's chest, but it does not cause any injury such as indicated in the facts charged, and that even if such injury was inflicted on the speaker, it constitutes self-defense, it is not unlawful.

3. According to the evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor, the issue is whether the causal relationship can be acknowledged between the defendant's act and the injury of the F is as follows: (i) the defendant's chest part of F in the right blue part of F in the course of a dispute with F in F, and (ii) the F suffers from the 11th right f, July 30, 201.

F made a statement in this Court to the effect that “the Defendant was faced with the right side blue by the Defendant and the blue is G, which is the Defendant’s side blue,” and F’s wife stated in this Court that “The Defendant’s side blue was flue by the Defendant with the left blue,” and that “F was flue with the Defendant’s side blue with the left blue,” and that “F was flue with the Defendant’s act and the Defendant’s injury.” The purport is that there was a causal relationship between the Defendant’s act and the F’s injury.

However, in light of the following circumstances admitted in accordance with the record, it is difficult to believe that the statement is in trust and otherwise F due to the Defendant’s act.