The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On November 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 17:40 on the D restaurant located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun; (b) on the part of the victim E and the drinking value payment issue; (c) on the part of the victim, the Defendant, on the part of the victim, brought about a dispute over with the victim E and the drinking value payment; (d) on the part of the part of the victim, he/she sleeped the victim’s knife at once; (c) was sicking both arms of the victim; and (d) caused the victim to inflict injury, such as brain salins, for which treatment for about 30 days is necessary.

2. There are statements from E and F, the main evidence as shown in the above facts charged, in this court and investigative agencies, and the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the complainant and F, as stated in the facts charged: (a) the complainant and F had the criminal defendant go beyond the scope of the complainant’s bridge on the part of the complainant.

However, G, H, who is another witness of this case, did not contact the body of the Defendant and the complainant in the D cafeteria on the day of this case.

The testimony is " and the complainant and F made a statement that is regularly assigned to the above statement and the above statement of the complainants and F. ② In the case of H, the complainants, a person operating the above D cafeteria operated by the I cafeteria, was the most clear witness on this case, and it seems that the complainants were only able to do so until the case occurred, and that the credibility of the statement among the witnesses adopted by this Court was determined to be the highest among the witnesses. ③ The complainants had been drunk at the time of entering the D cafeteria.

Also, in light of the testimony of H or the form of the complainant who was punished by the Defendant and vagabonds within the said I restaurant before the occurrence of this case (in the form of CCTV in the I restaurant located on the 73 pages of the investigation record, the body of the J and the complainant, who were other customers in the D restaurant, was able to turn on a breath.