The defendant is innocent.

Around 23:50 on June 25, 201, the Defendant: (a) was a taxi driven by D on the roads near Jeju-si, and arrived at the destination; (b) the victim E (57 years of age) who was in the front of the judgment, was the victim E (the victim) who was in the front of the judgment; (c) was aware of the victim’s breath; and (d) was aware of the victim’s breath by assaulting the victim’s face by hand; and (d) caused the victim to breath of the treatment days.

Judgment

The defendant argued that even though he was in the process of leaving the victim's body to get out of his body, he did not cause the victim's wound while he was in the process of leaving the body, while the victim reported that he was in a dispute between D and the defendant, who is a taxi engineer of the same company, and the defendant reported that he was in a dispute between D and the defendant, and that he was in the same way the victim's face, and that he was in the victim's wife, etc. by pushing the victim's face.

Therefore, I will examine the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court and examine whether to recognize the facts charged.

1. On July 5, 2011, D, at the time of dispute between the Defendant and the victim, made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant made a telephone conversation to the police for reporting the above facts charged,” “The Defendant made a statement to the effect that it is different from the fact that the Defendant got the victim informed of the fact that he did not look at the victim’s breath and got the victim back.” In addition, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant did not seem to have the victim at the time of the Defendant and the victim, or the victim did not have the victim’s breath or the victim did not have the victim’s breath, etc. at the time of the victim’s breath, etc.” or that “the Defendant took a breath of the victim’s breath, etc. at the time of the victim