The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around June 6, 2018, around C convenience stores located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s head at one time with a hack pipe (a 1 meter in length, a hump pole in convenience store), which is a dangerous thing in the victim’s face, on the ground that the victim D (year 41) said the victim’s credit card was not used by the victim at the victim’s hump around C convenience stores located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

2. The Defendant consistently asserts that there was no assault by the victim in a hack pipe. The hack pipe that the Defendant used to assault the victim is insufficient to make a statement as evidence to the effect that the Defendant either submitted as evidence to this court or did not specify it at the investigation stage, and that the Defendant used to assault the victim in a hack pipe, which is a dangerous thing.

However, it is difficult to believe that D’s statement that the Defendant assaulted the victim with a hack pipe is difficult in light of the following facts acknowledged by the record.

D stated in the accusation that “the Defendant had sold the Defendant on two occasions with a chain pipe.” However, on the day of the filing of the complaint, the police investigation was made on the day of the complaint, stating that “the Defendant was investigated by the police that he had the head of the pipe once more.” There is no consistency in the number of times the Defendant assaulted him by a pipe.

(D) In this regard, the Prosecutor asked D that “the Defendant had been present as a witness in this Court, but did not meet the harm of the witness,” and D asked D to the effect that “the Defendant was faced with, and complied with, the following.” There is no reason to say that the Defendant had a pipe displayed on the victim.” D’s statement in this Court as a witness, and in relation to the hack pipe, it is necessary that there was a few hackras influs on the side of the hacks.

A.I.