The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was unilaterally made by the Defendant from E, and it did not constitute E, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. At around 01:40 on July 14, 201, the Defendant of the instant facts charged, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol in combination with the victim E at the above main point, was a time-contest that the Defendant took part in a dispute.

In the process, when the defendant drinks the victim's inner part and the shoulder, etc., the defendant suffered damage to the victim's 28-day treatment, such as the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral, the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluorals

B. After recognizing the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant was not sufficiently able to recognize the Defendant as guilty on the grounds that the Defendant’s legal statement of E and F and the statement of the injury diagnosis supporting the legal statement and the injury diagnosis document in support thereof, as in the instant facts charged.

3. Judgment of the court below

A. On July 14, 2011, the instant case pertains to the main point of “D” of the G operation located in G in the wife population C at Chicago-si around 01, July 14, 201 (hereinafter “instant main point”).

) From the perspective of E and the Defendant, while drinking alcohol on different tables, they were able to attract the Defendant from the Defendant’s table to the outside of the main line. In that process, it is a matter of whether the Defendant unilaterally met from E, or was injured by drinking, such as drinking, etc. as stated in the facts charged. 2) Meanwhile, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, H, the main employee of E and the Defendant, immediately after going out of the main line of this case.