The defendant is innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, on July 25, 2017, reported on the fact that the victim EF (victim’s father) and Si c in front of the main room of “D” located in Gwangju Mine-gu C and the first floor of Gwangju Mine-gu around July 25, 2017, and that the Defendant acted without his father’s path.

“At the end of the end, assaulted the victim at one time on the floor of his/her hand.”

2. Determination

A. The main evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case is the victim’s statement to the effect that the Defendant had the same as the stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and G and H’s statement to the effect that the Defendant used to assault the victim.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances, it is difficult to believe that each of the statements made by victims, G, and H, who seem to conform to the facts charged in the instant case, are believed as they are.

1) The statements made by the victim concerning the situation before the Defendant assaulted the victim are not consistent and are not consistent with G and H’s statements.

A) Although the victim stated to the effect that there was a 'A’-child dispute with his father (F) after the victim’s family meeting was written immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, there was no further fact from the investigative agency to the investigation agency to the instant court’s father and father, or otherwise, to the effect that they did not claim.

With respect to this, the injured party shall drink at the time of “in this Court” and shall not make arrangements because there is no light. This was arranged.

“Statement to the effect that there was no debate as to whether there was a dispute with the father.”

Unlike the facts, it is thought that the statement is not the content to be made after the fact.

B) On the other hand, G, which is the mother of the victim, had been ordering the victim who is the husband F to the investigation agency.

F made a statement to the effect that “F was sparing the body of her children because she wanted to have the body of her children,” and in this Court, “F was disputing the victim and F was the victim.”