The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant and C are working, and D and E are employees of “G points” in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F.

A. On February 12, 2015, the Defendant and C jointly discussed around 01:00 on February 12, 2015, the Defendant and C suffered bodily injury, such as spawning the coffee contained in the paper World Cup to the victim D (42:3) and spawning it into hand, and spawning it into the victim’s spawn, and spawning it into the victim’s spawn. The Defendant, by hand, spawned the victim’s side into the victim’s spawn in the number of treatment days, and spawn out the victim’s side into the victim’s side.

B. The Defendant and C jointly committed the crime against the Defendant and the Victim E, and the Defendant and C assaulted the victim E (37 years of age) at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), on one occasion, at the victim E (37 years of age), and at the same time, at the same time and at the same place, the Defendant assaulted the victim by taking the head of the victim’s head into custody.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the joint injury to D (1) as to the evidence that seems consistent with this part of the facts charged, there is a statement of D with the following contents.

(A) At the police, D, “The Defendant and C sent the drinking value to the 1st floor suspender of G main points indicated in the facts charged.”

The coffee cited by C had the face of the coffee with the fingers of knife and knife the knife of it, and then the knife had the face again, and the knife had the face again.

It was time that C did not attend the moment, and it was time for C.

After this, the defendant, who reported it, was at the time of the head's loss.

C made a statement to the effect that it was later used by ppuri C that he was able to wear clothes.

(B) At the court, D stated to the effect that “C and Defendant 2 are the same.”

(2) However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, it is difficult to believe that D’s respective statements are not reliable, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient.