The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the facts charged was around 20:00 on July 11, 2015, on the front side of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, where the victim D (64 tax) and Si fat, and the victim fatd, and the defendant fatddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

As a result, the defendant suffered from the victim's shocking dystrophrosiss on both sides of the number of days of treatment due to the shock.

Judgment

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion that the Defendant got out of the victim on the day of the instant crime, but whether the victim got out of the victim is not memory.

The argument is asserted.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the recognition of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree to have the aforementioned conviction, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable amnesty, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). (b) Examining whether the defendant was guilty of the victim, according to the following circumstances recognized by each police statement about E and F and the regeneration of CCTV weather: witness did not correctly witness the situation immediately before the victim went beyond the victim, and the CCTV was also part of CCTV’s body and part of CCTV’s body, and the victim and the defendant did not appear beyond the victim’s body.