The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On October 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 10:20 on October 27, 2014, at the front side of the D office in Ycheon-si, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the E (49 years old); (b) as a “loss,” the Defendant was in need of approximately two weeks of treatment by pushing the E’s chest part; and (c) was in need of approximately two weeks of treatment.

2. The defendant's gist of the defense of the defendant asserts that " although the defendant was in contact with the defendant's breast part of the defendant's breast part of the defendant's breast part of the defendant's chest and the chest part of the E in the course of the dispute with E, the defendant does not constitute the crime of injury since he did not know the part of the defendant's breast part of the defendant's breast part of the E as "loss".

3. Determination

A. In light of the following, the burden of proving the facts charged charged in a criminal trial and the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged, and the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is doubtfully guilty even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

B. According to each evidence duly admitted and investigated by this Court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, even though the defendant was aware that he was a citizen of the chest to E in the course of engaging in a dispute with E, each of the following circumstances presented by the prosecutor alone was sealed by the defendant as "the defendant's hand" at the time, considering the following circumstances comprehensively.

It is difficult to readily conclude that E suffers an injury or injury, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1. Witness E testified in this Court that “the Defendant was “the Defendant’s son” and her and the Defendant was at the seat of the CCTV blind spot.” In this case where there is no sufficient proof that the Defendant was partially aware of CCTV and was sealed from the blind spot to e in his hands, the Defendant is a citizen at least once in a dispute with E.