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

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. At around 22:00 on January 23, 2018, the Defendant was suffering from the victim C (at around 59 years of age) at the house of the victim C (at around 22:0, 2018, he/she became aware of that he/she had been seated in the table with the victim and became an issue of vehicle compensation, and became an issue of dispute with the victim and became a dangerous object.

In this respect, the defendant carried dangerous objects and assaulted the victim.

B. At around 22:00 on January 23, 2018, the Defendant, at the home of the victim C (Woo, 59 years of age), was involved in a dispute with the victim as a matter of vehicle compensation, and was involved in a dispute between the victim and the victim, who was at the home of the victim C (Woo, 59 years of age), and was at the seat of the victim, who was at the seat of the victim, and was at the seat of the victim, who was at the seat of the victim, did not proceed with the conversation in the direction of the Defendant, and was acting on the table of the container of the wooden material that

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

2. Determination

A. The defense counsel asserts that: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court; (b) the defendant stated in the prosecutor’s office that “the defendant was a tabled person while taking a bath in multiple scamscams; (c) he was faced with the victim, but not faced with the victim,” among the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant prepared by the prosecutor, the above part of the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant was prepared by the investigator’s strong attitude or scams, and thus, is inadmissible as it is inadmissible.

In a case where the defendant asserts the voluntariness of the defendant's statement written in the suspect interrogation protocol and it is a false confession, the court below held that the defendant's academic background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence degree, contents of the statement, and the form of the protocol in the case of the suspect interrogation protocol, based on the specific case.