If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is believed to be the victim C(90 years of age, women).

On April 15, 2011, the Defendant: (a) around 15:00, the 107-dong 1101-dong D Apartment-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do; (b) at the apartment center, the Defendant changed the card key, the key of the entrance door, and (c) however, the Defendant laid down the victim’s knife in the Australian machine in order to deduct the key of the knife who did not knife it.

At this time, on the ground that the victim resisted against the victim's resistance to avoid cutting the key, the defendant was faced with the victim, leaving the victim over the floor of the living room, and divided both knee and knee-knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne

As a result, the defendant put the brain-dead sugar and the right straw in need of treatment for about two weeks to the satise victim.

Of the facts charged in the indictment, the prosecutor withdrawn the part of the indictment stating that “the victim’s face was frighted by drinking at several times,” and the part stating that “the victim was frighted by drinking,” and it is unclear whether it constitutes a separate crime of intimidation, and it is merely a part accompanied by the act of injury in this case, and is excluded from the crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C, E, and F;

1. A medical certificate of injury, a photographic material of the injured part, and a medical opinion;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 257 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of selective fine (to take the following into account the grounds for sentencing):

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted to the effect that they did not put an injury even though they did not put an injury due to the key issue. However, according to the aforementioned evidence, the fact that the victim was injured by the scambling, etc. during the process, and the fact that the Defendant could have sufficiently known