The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On October 23, 2012, the Defendant, at the main point of “C” located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on October 23, 2012, 200: (a) while drinking alcohol with the victim D (the age of 43) and talking with the Defendant; (b) the Defendant, as a matter of common controversy, disputed the victim’s face and chest part at a time, went on the body of the victim and went on a match with the victim for about 14 days; and (c) the Defendant, as a matter of drinking, went on the victim’s face and part of the chest part of the chest part of the said charges, provided

2. Determination

A. There are evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, such as D, E’s investigative agency and legal statement, and the injury diagnosis report attached to the police investigation report. However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed in the records of the instant case, it is insufficient to deem that the Defendant inflicted injury upon D due to the consideration of D solely by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise

1) The Defendant asserted from the investigative agency to the court that he was unilaterally and clearly explaining the consistent and present situation from the investigation agency to the court, and that he did not commit any assault, and that his attitude was maintained at the same time with D and E. 2) The statement made by D cannot be recognized credibility in the following respect. A) D consistently asserted to the effect that it was true that it was proven that he was under investigation by the police officer dispatched to the scene that the police officer made a statement of damage, prepared a written statement from the police officer, and was investigated as the first suspect, and was under investigation by the police officer as the suspect, and that he was under investigation from the Defendant. In this court, D stated that he was not under investigation by the Defendant. At this court, it was consistent with the summary order that it was not consistent, and that it was not so consistent, and that it was not so consistent with, and that it was not a person who referred to as a person who was under investigation, and that it was a true witness. B) At the time, it was obvious that D inflicted an injury on the Defendant, and that it was under a summary order.