The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 03:00 on February 8, 2012, the Defendant: (a) held an off-line meeting with a victim C (33 years of age) who was aware of an online game temperature in the Defendant’s residence in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu B and 201; and (b) held an off-line meeting with a victim C (33 years of age) who drinking alcohol; (c) assessed the victim’s inside part of the body for drinking alcohol for about 14 days on the ground that the victim was able to take injection; and (d) inflicted an injury on the part of the spaf that there was a flood control that requires a treatment for about

2. The defendant denies the facts charged in this case by asserting that there is no difference between the investigative agency and the investigative agency to the extent that there is no price for the victim's inner part of the facts charged in this case, and there is a statement made by the victim in this court and the investigative agency as evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case. The summary of the victim's statement is that "in the course of drinking the defendant and the victim, while drinking, the defendant said that "the victim was "I kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn'," and that the defendant directly sold the victim's inner part of the victim's inner part of drinking, and the victim was faced by the victim's entrance at the time of the victim'

However, it is difficult to believe that the above statements made by the victim are inconsistent with the victim's above statements in this court and investigative agency, such as D, E, and F, which were in the above location at the time.

In addition, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the written diagnosis of injury caused another cause in light of the victim’s drinking condition, etc., and it is difficult to regard the instant facts charged as direct evidence to prove the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove that the facts charged in the instant case were guilty.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the