The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On May 24, 2015, the Defendant discovered that the victim D(53 years old, South) who was sexually friendly to-friendly to-bed from an elementary school is drinking alcohol within a joint market located in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, and expressed a desire for the victim without any particular reason.

In this regard, Does the victim desire to take care of dynasium

The defective Defendant in this paragraph “The day after the night math,” is a criminal part of A, and the inside of the Republic of Korea is a cherbh, and the inside of the Republic of Korea.

C. The victim's face and head can be considered as a food, and the victim's face and head was taken three times consecutively.

As a result, the defendant suffered injuries such as 10th left 10 months cage cage cages which require treatment between approximately 1 month.

2. According to the lower court’s judgment, the part of the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant, the written statement of the police, written opinion, internal investigation report, and internal investigation report (related to the statement of the shot E), the Defendant complained of D’s son’s son, and D, immediately after the instant case, appealed against the Defendant, and the victim under the influence of alcohol was sent to the F hospital on the day of the instant case, and the victim was diagnosed of injury due to the 10th left side of the 10th Republic of Korea (the investigation record 7,10,25, 34 pages). We examine whether the above injury was caused by the Defendant’s assault.

First of all, among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the protocol of the police statement of D, which was part of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, was not consented to the defendant as evidence, and it was not recognized as a authenticity established by the original statement of the person who made the original statement, and thus, it is not admissible. Among the investigation report (related to the victim D injury load), the part of the statement of D, which was written in the form of a text and answer, is a specialized evidence in the form of a text and interview, and it is not admissible as there is no signature or seal of D (refer to Supreme Court Decision 98Do2742 delivered on February 26, 199, etc.). Next, among the opinions, D was in accordance with

Part complaining of the appeal (34 pages of the investigation record) is part of the witness D’s legal statement, report on internal investigation (related to the statement E).