beta
Text
Defendant
B. The Defendant A is not guilty. The prosecution of this case against Defendant A is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The Defendants, at around 02:00 on June 4, 2012, at the main point of “E” located in the 7th floor of “E” in Gwangju Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu, the victim G (50 years of age), the victim H (57 years of age), and the victim H (57 years of age) were in a mutual vision, and Defendant B was salping the head of the said H by carrying the ebbbbbb of the said F, and Defendant A was salping the head of the said H one time in his hand, and the face of the said H was salping once in drinking, and was salping the salp of the said H, and was salping the salp of the said H, and was salping the salp of the said G.
As such, the Defendants jointly assaulted the victims.
2. Defendant B’s lawsuit and judgment on the facts charged of this case
A. Defendant B’s defense counseled that Defendant B did not trace F’s f’s bage or assault Defendant A with the victim H and G.
B. (A) Examining the facts charged against Defendant B in light of whether Defendant B 2 was sculpted with f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s h’ and
However, in this court, the witness I stated in this court that "the police testimony was caused by mistake that was not clearly distinguished from the defendant B and A, and that the defendant B was drunked at the time at the point of the above E, and did not do so, "the witness H also made a statement to the purport that he was under influence of alcohol at the time at the point of the above E," and that the defendant Eul made an assault and assault at the point of the above E, "A was the defendant," and even according to the police's statement in the police's protocol of interrogation of the suspect's interrogation of the police, he only made the statement to the effect that "the defendant B was under influence of alcohol," and even according to the statement in the police's protocol of interrogation of the police, he was referred to only the defendant B and the defendant was referred to as "the defendant B's act of assault." In light of the fact that the defendant B was under influence of alcohol at the point of the above E, as in the defense of the defendant B, and did not participate in the assault.