The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On June 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 18:00, the Defendant: (b) placed the victim E (73 tax) door at the D two-way shop operated by the Defendant in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Jung-gu; (c) placed the entrance door; and (d) opened the entrance to the right hand of the victim; and (d) opened the entrance so as to put the victim’s right hand in the gap.

As a result, the defendant set three sides of the right side in need of treatment for about 14 days to the victim.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant was injured by the victim to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant was injured by the victim.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The Defendant attempted to open the entrance from the inside of the D two-way points to let the victim leave the entrance, and the victim attempted to open the entrance from the outside of the entrance.

In light of the above, the above entrance is the right string, and the left side is the form of turning back, and in the above circumstances, the hand hacks the left hand.

Nevertheless, the diagnosis of injury contains the victim's "three sides of the right side", etc.

② In addition, the above medical certificate of injury was prepared by the victim on June 9, 2017, past four days from June 5, 2017, which was the date of the occurrence of the instant case, after being diagnosed by the victim on June 9, 2017. Thus, there is a possibility that the victim suffered suffering suffering from the injury for another reason between the occurrence of the instant case and the date

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant does not consent to the public notice of the judgment of innocence, and thus, the purport of public notice of the judgment of innocence is not pronounced pursuant to the proviso of

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.