The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant was aware of the facts charged with the Victim C (50 years of age).

On June 7, 2015, around 21:45, the Defendant assaulted the victim on the street of the E- pharmacy located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating that the victim was frightened, and that the victim was not frightening for the basic supply and demand of the victim, and that the victim was frightening the victim’s ear back to the right side and the back part of the E- pharmacy in Guro-gu, Seoul.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the establishment of a criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction is to be ensured, the determination should be made with the benefit of the defendant even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). (B)

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) on June 7, 2015, at around 21:45 minutes before the E- pharmacy, committed assault against the victim, such as drinking the victim on the right side of the back side and drinking the back part of the E- pharmacy.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is difficult to believe that on-site visit reports and statements by victims (each of the statements in investigation agencies and courts) as shown in the above facts charged are in accord with the above facts charged, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) The Defendant consistently denies the fact of assault, as described in the facts charged, from an investigative agency to this court.

② At the site visit report, F was referred to as witness, but F was present at this court as witness, and F was only in the vicinity of Guser, not the E-Contracting at the site of violence, and at the time of the defendant.