beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
The summary of the facts charged was around 22:30 on April 14, 2013, the Defendant: (a) within the “D” entertainment bar located in Yangju City, and (b) under the influence of alcohol, the victim E (the age of 52) who was a customer in the middle of the disturbance together with the Defendant’s daily behaviors, and (c) caused the beer’s disease, which is a dangerous article on the table, and (d) caused the victim to undergo approximately 2 weeks of treatment, and (e) caused the victim to go through the beer’s head.
Judgment
There are statements in E, F, and G as evidence that the defendant was suffering from a beer's disease, and there are statements in E, F, and G.
First of all, the health unit of E and G statements made by the police that the defendant tried to f when the defendant was about to f, while the police stated that the defendant was about to f when she was about to her back, and that she was about her back to her back. The court stated that she was informed that she was the defendant due to her back head in this court, and that she was aware that she was the perpetrator, and she was aware that she was the defendant. G was in the toilet at the time of the instant case, and she was investigated by the police and stated that she was the defendant that she was the victim she was the defendant, and that she was the victim she from E and F after being investigated by the police. Accordingly, the statements of E and G are not direct evidence
F’s statement was made by the police that the Defendant was at the time of E’s head as a beer’s disease. In this court, the first person who was at the time of E’s beer’s disease was not the Defendant, but the person who was at the time of the Defendant’s work. However, the head was at the time of E’s head was at a level lower than that of the Defendant. After E, the Defendant appears to have been at the time of the Defendant’s appearance, and the perpetrator was at the time of the perpetrator’s statement from the employee H of the dan’s work. Thus, it is difficult to make clear that F’s statement, which is direct evidence, was inconsistent.
This is ① The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, I, J, K, and I.