The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Judgment on the primary facts charged

A. On February 19, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 12:00 on February 19, 2015, at the grandparents’ cemetery located in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun; (b) on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the part of the Defendant, setting up against the Defendant who walked in the fat where the Defendant was seated, thereby spreading the victim’s right arms to the right part; and (c) caused approximately 42 days of treatment to the victim, she was accompanied by the floor slope, the bend part of the bend part of the bend part of the bend part

B. According to the result of the fact-finding by this court on E Hospital, it is difficult to find that the above injury suffered by the victim was an act of cutting down his/her hands and bruting or bruting his/her hands, and rather, it is likely that the injury occurred in the process of

Therefore, even if the defendant spreaded the victim's knife, it is difficult to view that the defendant had the intent to inflict such injury on the defendant in doing such act.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the above injury was caused by the defendant's act.

2. Judgment on the ancillary facts charged

A. On February 19, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 12:00 on February 19, 2015, at a grandparent’s cemetery located in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun; (b) on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was walking Mat where the Defendant was seated, thereby assaulting the victim’s right shoulder.

B. First of all, even based on the witness F and G’s legal statement, F and G did not directly see that the Defendant committed a harmful act, such as taking the victim’s right arms, etc., and thus, F and G’s statements at each police station and the prosecution are difficult to believe.

Next, even if based on the health belt and witness D’s legal statement, the Defendant was able to catch and spread the victim’s right hand, and thus, is not consistent with the facts charged.

Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was saved by taking the victim's knife.

On the other hand, according to the witness D's legal statement in the second trial record, the defendant is the defendant.