beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On October 31, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 21:50 on October 31, 2014, at the “E” drinking house operated by the victim D (the 46-year-old age), the Defendant demanded credit to the victim; (b) the victim’s chests were sent twice to the victim’s chests; (c) the victim took care of the Defendant’s hand and avoided it; and (d) the victim took care of the victim, thereby committing an indecent act by forceing the victim by force.
2. Determination:
A. Although the Defendant alleged that he had claimed the Defendant at the main point operated by the victim, the Defendant did not prove that he had the victim’s chests or side glass, and did not deny the instant facts charged.
B. (1) According to the records of this case, the defendant was a person who was frequently in the above main points operated by the ordinary victim because he was inside the victim. On the day of this case, the defendant was 3 times back to the main points of this case, was able to recognize the fact that the defendant was able to ask the victim to take a bath and to take a wound in the above main points, and the defendant was able to ask the victim to take a bath, and the appraisal was frightly between the victim and the victim, two of the defendant's behavior in the main points of this case was frighten, and the two of the defendant's behavior in the main points of this case was frighten in the main place. The defendant and the victim still continued a conflict of opinion, and F, which judged that it is impossible to take the place, also the fact that the defendant was frighted by the police officer dispatched after receiving a report.
(2) The victim stated that the defendant will take a bath while entering the main place, and that the other guest who was stude by avoiding the disturbance will go, and that the defendant would get out of the stude, and that the defendant would have come out of the stude and continued to come back with the stude, and that the f was witnessed by the defendant who was the first executive of the defendant.
The defendant denies that there is no such fact.