The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 22:10 on October 22, 2012, the Defendant expressed that the victim E did not receive the agreement on the assault case occurred in the previous year in front of the D Association located in Sinsi-si, Sinsi-si, and that the Defendant expressed the intent to “drawing this agreement as to why is, and as to why is, the agreement, and as to why is, the fraud.”

Accordingly, the victim was assaulted to the fluor of a fluort fluor, "I am Ham............................................................

2. Direct evidence corresponding to the above facts charged include the witness E’s legal statement, the police statement of E, and the accusation.

On the other hand, the evidence of this case revealed the following circumstances, i.e., ① the part concerning defamation against the accused against whom the non-prosecution decision was made, and only the part concerning the facts charged of this case stating the Defendant’s act of assaulting against the Defendant through verbal abuse and violence without any justifiable reason. ② The victim subsequently described the Defendant’s act of assault against the rule of experience. This is contrary to the rule of experience, and the victim’s statement is difficult to believe (the victim appeared in the court as a witness and appeared in the process of assault and was called as the police officer, and was called as a witness. At this time, the court summoned F and G, which is the police officer at the time of dispatch, and asked the witness as a witness, and the above witness stated that there is considerable doubt about the credibility of the victim’s statement, such as the victim’s statement that there was no such a face, ③ the victim’s act of assault against the Defendant, which is the victim E, should be repaid to the Defendant due to the act of assault against the Defendant, which is the victim and the victim’s motive.