The defendant is innocent.

At around 02:20 on December 4, 2012, the Defendant, in the factory, was in sight of the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant was faced with F and the body of the victim E (the age of 52) in the next table table, while drinking alcohol at the D and D points located in Seongbuk-si, Sungnam-si, Sinnam-si, and drinking alcohol.

The Defendant used assault by plucking, plucking, etc. of F arms, and inflicted an injury on the number of treatment days, such as plucking of the victim’s head debt on the ground that the victim E speaks it, cutting it by gathering the beer cup, cutting it on the tebble, shicking the crode, which is a dangerous object, toward the face face of the victim, shicking back the victim’s right side, and shicking the victim’s right side, etc.

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., E and F, in investigative agencies and courts, made a statement that the Defendant did not leave two persons at the time when the Defendant and F would be the trial expense. However, it cannot be understood that the Defendant made a statement that: (a) the Defendant did not have any reason to assault Party E; (b) F and G was sealed in the bar bar and was a trial expense; and (c) the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant was not able to see that the Defendant was able to wear the head of E, while considering that the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant was not able to see the Defendant’s head.

③ If the Defendant shouldered the World Cup, female employees in the danran would have seen play reaction. According to F and G’s statements, the Defendant appears to have not existed up to the situation where the Defendant was displayed to E with the shoulder World Cup. ④ In light of the fact that the Defendant and E are able to stiffly run outside the bar entrance, it cannot be readily concluded that E’s injury occurred by the shoulder World Cup. ⑤ In the instant case, it is not preserved by an investigative agency after the discovery of the shoulder World Cup at the time of the instant case, and ② E is so drunk as to the extent that the Defendant and E’s vision at the time of the instant case are unlikely to cover costs.