The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the above judgment shall be publicly notified.

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant assaulted the victim, on March 9, 2017, by demanding the return of the victim’s cell phone from the above D warehouse, the victim was using the victim’s cell phone at the cost of working in the Dong-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (the head of the center for the Defendant, the victim’s vice head) with the victim B (39). On March 9, 2017, the Defendant used the victim, on the ground that the victim refused the return of the victim’s cell phone at the above D warehouse, such as the victim’s febb

2. The burden of proof of the facts charged in a criminal trial for judgment is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged, and the conviction of the guilty ought to be based on the evidence with probative value that makes the judge not having any reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

At the time of the instant case, at the material warehouse, the Defendant and the victim were in conflict with each other, and the victim was seated. However, it is recognized that the Defendant was kneeker who was knee of the Defendant (the space between the two sides of the victim where the Defendant knee knee se se se se se se se se se se se se se se se se se se se se se seng), and that the Defendant’s head was sound near the direction of the victim (the testimony of 47 pages of investigation record and witness E). The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant, like the facts charged, had a e se s

In this regard, there is a witness E’s protocol and a written statement of interrogation of suspect (a protocol or a written statement in which the victim B’s investigative agency’s statement was written). However, it was not adopted as evidence because the defendant consented to the use of evidence, and the victim’s witness was not present at the bar.