The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. On July 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 06:30 of the facts charged, at the Defendant’s house located in the Heung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office; (b) the victim’s initial facts charged in the Defendant’s house, which was the Defendant’s wife, was indicated as “E” but the person at the present site was clearly identified as “D” rather than “E” as the Defendant recognized; and (c) thus, the victim should be indicated as “D” without changing the indictment.

While drinking together with the above, the victim was in a trial on the ground that the previous defendant scising the fact that the defendant scisfyed in a criminal case to the wife and scisfing the alcoholic beverage.

At that time, the defendant laid the alcohol disease on the floor, broken the alcohol disease, cut the left part of the bridge facing the victim, cut the face in hand, cut the face in hand, led the victim by the entrance of the entrance of the entrance, leading the victim over the second floor.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, following the left side of the treatment days, requiring 0.5 cmon knee-knee-knee-knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne

2. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that there was no fact that the Defendant laid the floor by gathering the alcohol disease on the tables at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, and there was no room for the Defendant to have the victim face by hand, or to have the victim go beyond the stairs pushed down.

3. In a criminal trial, the recognition of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that the aforementioned convictions, even if there are suspicions of guilt, such as inconsistency with the Defendant’s assertion or defense or non-competence, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the Defendant, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012.