The prosecution against the injury caused by negligence in this case is dismissed.

1. On September 8, 2017, the Defendant is the owner B of the facts charged, who was sentenced by the Jeju District Court on September 8, 2017 to imprisonment with prison labor for special obstruction of performance of official duties, damage to public goods, and two years of suspension of execution, and is currently under suspension of execution as determined on September 16, 2017.

At around 01:45 on December 3, 2017, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol with the victim E (year 41) who was fright in the “D” restaurant located in Seopopo City C, and talking with the victim E (year 41), had different opinions due to the political issues, she was faced with the wall immediately next to that of the victim who was seated by the victim, and caused the injury of the victim due to the free wave of the fright of the fright's head.

2. According to the evidence adopted by this court and examined by this court, the fact that the defendant made a political talk with the victim who was friendly and sexual intercourse with another relative, the defendant did not have a verbal dispute with another relative, the fact that the defendant did not have a sexual intercourse with the victim while making a sexual intercourse with the victim, the victim was faced with the wall because the victim was expected to sit on the wall, but the victim was faced with the wall, and he was 7 cm above the left part of the wall (3 cm in the prosecution, but 7 cm in accordance with the medical record and the fact-finding reply). The victim stated that the victim was an assault with the 119 first medical service worker to have a sexual intercourse with the victim, and the victim made a statement that he had a sexual intercourse with the head of the Jeju University Hospital and the head of the Jeju University Hospital had an emergency medical dispute with the victim, and finally, the victim made a statement that he had a sexual intercourse with the victim.

On the other hand, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by each of the above evidence, the defendant did not have any awareness or possibility of being able to mislead the victim to the so-called So-called 's disease', and thus, the defendant did not have any negligence.