beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
The defendant is a person who works for the Japanese tour guide.
On January 5, 2017, around 12:30, the Defendant assaulted the victim E (45 years) and the victim E (45 years) on the ground that the Defendant said the victim D tourist restaurant located in Japan C, and said the victim E (the son, personnel, and homicide), “Is the victim’s left face one time,” and led the victim to an influence of the number of days of treatment.
Judgment
In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the evidence alone submitted by the Prosecutor was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.
It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
E made a statement to the investigative agency and this court to the effect that “the defendant made his left face one time on drinking.”
However, in light of the relationship between the Defendant and E prior to the instant case, the Defendant first sold E for the reason that the Defendant expressed the words “human sprinkers, personnel and sprinkers” from E.
In light of the fact that it is difficult to see the possibility that the Defendant’s grandchildren face E face in the process of melting the arms of the E, which walked with the trial cost, as alleged by the Defendant, is difficult to say, the statement of E is difficult to believe it as it is.
It is difficult to readily conclude that the level and level of E’s upper parts and parts of E appearing in E’s upper parts and parts of E’s upper parts (Evidence Nos. 3, 10) have changed to the degree to which E’s health status may interfere with the function of life.
In light of the Defendant’s upper part of the Defendant’s body, the internal structure and photograph (Evidence No. 112-118 of the evidence record) attached to the Defendant’s written application (Evidence No. 8) submitted by the Defendant’s spouse to an investigative agency, E was assaulted by the Defendant.
The claims of E are very narrow in the process of assaulting the defendant in the restaurant.