The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

On January 25, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around 19:00, at “C” located in Jeju-si B, the victim D (60 years of age) who is a company franchisor of the company was well fluored in the future; (b) was dissatisfied with the victim’s franchisoring of flachisor; and (c) was fluoring the victim’s right side side and face, resulting in the victim’s symptoms of flachisorosis (flachisoring or extreme damage) and serious injury to flachisor.

Although the defendant and his defense counsel have assessed the victim's face on one occasion, there is no fact that he has taken the victim's right eye as stated in the facts charged of this case. Thus, there is no causal link between the defendant's act and the victim's bodily injury (e.g., e., e., symptoms of e.g., e., e., depression).

The friendly history of the victim did not reach the real name of 0.125 now, and the symptoms of lives of lives do not constitute serious injury.

Judgment

The establishment of the crime of injury requires the result of the intentional act of injury and the causal link between such act, and the part and degree of the injury resulting therefrom must be clearly determined by evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do711, May 11, 1993). The burden of proof for the crime charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the judge. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's profit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). In light of the above legal doctrine, the health unit and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the Court is revealed as follows.