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

1. On November 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 11:00 on the southyang-si, the Defendant, in front of the Southern-si, brought about a dispute with the victim D due to the traffic of the vehicle; (b) caused the victim to face the victim’s end-off part of the charge by breaking the body of the damaged person by her hand and shakeing the victim; and (c) caused the victim to face the victim’s end-off part of the charge, such as “fluoring the fluor of the fluor,” which requires the victim to receive treatment for about 28 days.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion and the vehicle traffic problem are consistent with the punishment of ditches, but there is no injury by exercising the force of force against the victim as stated in the facts charged.

3. Determination

A. Criminal facts in a criminal trial ought to be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or uncomfortablely unfortunately unfortunately unfortunateed, it should be determined in the benefit of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011). In particular, where the defendant consistently denies the facts charged and the victim’s statement is de facto only based on direct evidence consistent with the facts charged on the record, in order to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged on the basis of the victim’s statement, there is a need to comprehensively consider the reasonableness, consistency, objective reasonableness, etc. of the victim’s statement itself when determining whether the defendant satisfies such probative value (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1611, May 10, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 201Do13614).