The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant and the victim B (69 tax, female) were present at the tenant meeting opened at the Jung-gu Daejeon apartment management office.

The defendant is the representative of D, and the victim is the resident who attended the meeting, but is not aware of each other.

On April 21, 2016, the Defendant, at around 20:00, was seated with an empty divers in the Jung-gu Daejeon apartment management office, Daejeon, Daejeon, where the victim was placed in front of the entrance.

When the defendant intends to get a chair who was placed in front of the entrance in the apartment D's conference room to proceed smoothly with the apartment D's representative, the victim passed beyond the floor that he wanted to sit.

As a result, the Defendant inflicts bodily injury on the victim, such as salt ties, tensions, etc., requiring four weeks of medical treatment.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes a judge sure that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant

B. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant neglected his duty of care when the Defendant went to the meeting room, while he knew that he would have been able to sit, thereby causing injury to the victim. According to the evidence adopted by the court, the Defendant could not be seen as having known that the victim was able to sit in the meeting room before the entrance about to go to the meeting room, as long as it appears that the Defendant could not have known that he was trying to sit in the witness.