The defendant shall be innocent.

The defendant is a person who sets up a farm house in farmland adjacent to a rice cultivated by the victim C (70 years of age).

On July 18, 2013, at around 09:40 on July 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) expressed the victim’s friend D’s desire to “friend friend, friend, friend, friend, friend, and friend, friend, friend, friend, friend, friend, friend, friend, friend, friend, friend, friend, friend, f

Judgment

1. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion lies in the fact that the Victim C (hereinafter “victim”) was knifeed at the time, but the Defendant did not inflict two weeks of bodily injury by considering the victim’s face as stated in the facts charged.

2. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial where the defendant had committed a victim at the time, and the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). We examine the instant case in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine.

A victim, E's investigative agencies and legal statements and F's investigative agencies are admissible as evidence that seem to conform to the above facts with respect to whether the defendant was a victim at the time, but their statements are difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts.

(1) The statement made by G by the accused and the accused to the effect that the accused knife the injured party's hand, or the injured party was pushed down his head, and that there is no fact at the time of the injured party.