The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, at around 17:00 on August 23, 2013, in the instant facts charged, was at a universal bath where it is difficult to identify the trade name in front of the C apartment door in Osan-si, Osan-si, and the victim D (the age of 59, female) who is a workplace partner incurred a trial fee to her husband on the ground that he/she did not go to her husband. While he/she was in dispute, the Defendant laid down the 42-day aggregate of the 42-day aggregate of the number of treatment days by plpling or digging up the son’s hand in front of the old, and thereby making it necessary for 4

2. D’s statements that seem to be consistent with the fact that the defendant and his defense counsel asserted D are not reliable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

3. The evidence that corresponds to the fact that the defendant plucked or plucked up D's damages is the only statement at D's investigative agencies and this court, and its credibility is examined.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, ① there was a dispute between the Defendant and D and the employees of E to which the Defendant and D et al. belong during a meeting, and there was no witness to exercise physical force against D in the course of a dispute between the Defendant and D while they were in the vicinity of the workplace common sense, ③ there was no witness to exercise physical force against D in the course of a dispute between the Defendant and D, ② D was suffering from the 42 days of treatment, which was 42 days of treatment, and even after the dispute between the Defendant and D, it is difficult to view it as a parallel to the Defendant even after the dispute between the Defendant and the Defendant. ③ It is difficult to exclude doubt as to whether a heavy water drupture may occur, such as D’s statement, and ④ it is difficult to recognize that D’s scuplicating and d’s humbling, etc. was in the state of injury to the Defendant.