The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On November 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 05:00 on November 2, 2016, at the victim E (23 years) and the same F (25 years old) as the victim E (23 years old) who drinked alcoholic beverages in the next place in Songpa-gu Seoul on the ground that the Defendant changed the Defendant; (b) took time off the victim E’s body by hand on the part of hand; (c) took the face of the victim F that was verbally taken a drinking; and (d) took the face of the victim F that could not be known of the period of treatment, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim E, such as an internal tag, etc.; and (d) took injury on the part of the victim F that requires the victim F’s treatment for about three weeks, such as an internal dystrophyal dys, etc.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006).

The Defendant, on the day of the occurrence of the instant case, settled the drinking value with a light card, started with a house living with a woman-friendly Gu and arrived at around 4:50.

Although Albaba, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone proves that Albababa was sufficiently proven.

It is insufficient to view it.

However, if the existence of the defendant's on-site absence is proved, the existence of the defendant's on-site absence should naturally constitute a conclusive evidence proving the defendant's innocence, but the existence is not proven.

The comprehensive evaluation of whether the facts charged have been proven without reasonable doubt, like other evidence.