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

1. On August 5, 2017, around 06:39, the Defendant: (a) served on the street in the front of the “D convenience store” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul; (b) committed assault to the victim’s back water by disregarding the victim’s e-mail; and (c) assaulting the victim’s e-mail at the right hand hand of the defect in which the e-mail intends

2. In a criminal trial, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent to have the aforementioned convictions, even if there is suspicions of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). As to the instant case, there is only a witness E’s legal statement, E’s written statement, and internal investigation (victim’s telephone investigation) as evidence consistent with the facts charged of the instant case.

At the time of the preparation of the written statement, the victim made a statement to the effect that “I am back from the defendant,” and stated to the effect that “I am off by drinking from the defendant at the time of being investigated by telephone from the investigative agency.” In this court, the victim was present as a witness at this court, “I am off by drinking while I am back from the defendant, and then I n kn k, and kn kn k and kn kn kn kn k.

In the future, it has been close to the future to be protruding.

Since each of the above evidences is not reliable, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case as it is not reliable, since each of the above evidences is not reliable.