The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant only made a fighting with the victim and C, and there is no fact that he was the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On July 5, 2013, at around 23:10 on July 5, 2013, the Defendant and C were victims F (the age of 48) who have brought a dispute with neighboring E stores in the public parking lot located in Ma, Masan-si, and C went beyond the victim’s face and body face by drinking and burning, and her hand, her hand, her hand over the pushed-up floor, and the Defendant jointly her face and body part of the victim’s body.

As a result, the Defendants jointly carried out a ductal aggregate that requires approximately seven weeks of treatment to the victims.

B. The lower court determined that the victim was credibility in the victim’s statement, taking into account the following facts: (a) the victim reported the damage to a police box immediately after the crime; (b) the Defendant consistently and specifically stated that he/she took part in the assault from the police box up to the time of investigation by the prosecution; (c) G was not involved in the assault; and (d) the victim clearly stated that he/she was assaulted by the Defendant; (c) it is difficult to deem that the victim had asserted false damage by exaggerationing the situation at the time; (d) the victim appears not to have been in a state of drinking to the degree that he/she could decrease in recognition ability; and (e) it is difficult for the victim to find any particular circumstance that could mislead the Defendant on the ground of falsity; and (e) it is found that

C. In this court’s judgment 1-related legal doctrine, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have the degree of confluence without any reasonable doubt, and thus, the prosecutor is obliged to do so.