The defendant shall be innocent.

On February 17, 2016, at around 00:10, the Defendant was the owner of “E” located in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju, and, during the dispute between the customer P who singing in the place and the bareboat P, C had a bundle, and C had a bund of P, and the Defendant had a flap of the victim Q Q (39 years old) who had sold P, thereby destroying the flap of the victim who had sold P.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim jointly with C.

However, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, at the time of the instant case, he only saw Q’s shoulder, etc. in order to see the growing of fighting between the customer P and the P, and that he did not assault.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence, it is recognized that, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant 1 was spawn by cutting off or cutting bridges between C and P, etc.

On the other hand, C, R, S et al. stated to the effect that there was no yellow situation in police investigations, and that the Defendant did not assault any member of the military, or that the Defendant did so in a place where he attempted to fight.

In full view of the above evidence and circumstances, it seems that there was a little physical conflict between the defendant, the owner of the business at the time of the instant case, the defendant, Qu, and T, etc., who are the owner of the business at the time of the instant case, and in the process of concluding the said fighting, etc.

In other words, the trial expense between the defendant and Q was merely intended to fight, and there was an intention to commit mutual assault.

It is difficult to see it.

Thus, since the facts charged in this case, which is premised on the defendant's intentional assault against Q, constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, the defendant shall be acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.