The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 10:00 on July 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) placed the victim E (the 43-year-old-old-dong), who was at the front waiting room of the Mayang-dong-dong-dong District Court 313 located in Goyang-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter referred to as “the 43-year-old-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong),

2. The evidence that corresponds to the above facts charged is admissible, and there are statements from E and D in this legal and investigative agencies. The alternative injury following these statements are as follows.

(Partially, the defendant's right side side of the front elbows. - When the witness sits in the right side of the defendant who is sitting in the front room and the right side side side of the defendant who is sitting in the front room, the defendant left side side of the bridge to be above the upper side of the bridge, and the witness's right side side side side side side of the bridge to be sloping by the left side side.

However, it is not easy for the defendant, who has a physical disability in spine in the old age, to make a strong price to the degree that he/she will inflict an injury on the platform of the person who sit next to the action above in the general delivery. It is not consistent with the common sense that the defendant, who has a physical disability in spine in the old, has a strong price to inflict an injury on the right platform of the witness due to such action.

If so, the possibility that E and D might be mistaken for the defendant to have caused the injury to the left side of the defendant and the right side of E to simply contact the defendant's bridge. Therefore, it is difficult to believe each of the above statements of E and D as they are.

On the other hand, among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is not sufficient to recognize that the hole on the right side of E is based on the defendant's price, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged.

Therefore, the above.