The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a company member of the facts charged.

On August 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 03:55, on the front side of the D main line in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju; (b) on the ground that under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant took a bath and bath against the victim E (the age of 18); (c) was able to influorize the victim E’s satch; (d) five times the face of the victim F (the age of 17); (e) was fluord; (e) was fluord by five times; (e) the Defendant, an accomplice; (e) was 7,8 times from the victim’s arms; (f) was walking the victim’s arms; (f) was walking the victim’s face at three times by drinking; and (f) H, an accomplice, took three times the victim’s face by hand; and (f) was fluoring the victim’s e/gor by taking three times the victim’s horses.

Accordingly, the Defendant assaulted the Victim F and E in collaboration with G and H.

2. The evidence as shown in the facts charged in the instant case includes the witness E and F’s each legal statement and each police interrogation protocol of the suspect suspect interrogation protocol of the witness E and E and F (the I’s legal statement and the police interrogation protocol of the suspect interrogation protocol of the suspect are consistent to the purport that they are unable to memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of the occurrence of the instant case) but according to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant, the day the instant case occurred, G, and H are drinking in the main place, and E, I, and F are also drinking in the main place of the instant case, and they are h and E first being drinking in a different table from the customer.

There have been a door from J, the owner of the business, and the end of the above main point. The defendant told G and E to wrap at this place, and sent E to the convenience store in the vicinity of the damage, while E, I, and F, E, I, and F, even if they stated that they were to be saved from the defendant in this law and investigation agency, they suffered from the damage by several times to the victim's convenience store, and they did not make a detailed statement about the summary of the damage.