The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged is from the “Cda” operated by the victim B (n, 61 years of age) to the female employee.

On July 6, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 21:00, at around 21:00, the E-ray No. 2 located in Cheongsong-gun, Cheongsong-gun; (b) stated that “n't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl'; and (c) followed the Defendant that “fl's head fl's head fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl's head fl't fl't fl's head fl'

2. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial for judgment is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between 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 en banc Decision 2008Jado11, Jan. 20, 201). Although there is a statement at the investigation agencies and courts of B and F as evidence that the Defendant committed a harmful act, such as the act indicated in the facts charged, the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim in light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

F's statement in the investigative agency and court has been replaced by the defendant and the victim's bath and avoid disturbance, and customers have been in other rooms by avoiding disturbance.