If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

On October 30, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around the elevator of the first floor of the G apartment in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si; (b) around the first floor of the B apartment in the area of Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si; and (c) around the first floor of the first floor in the dispute with the victim C (63 years of age); (d) on one occasion of drinking, the Defendant sent the victim a part of the victim's entrance to drinking, and had a 28

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the defendant's partial statement of the defendant's legal statement C's death diagnosis report, investigation report (in the case of dentists' call report and investigation record 37 pages);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

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

1. The defendant, guilty of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, asserts to the effect that he was unilaterally assaulted by the victim, and that he did not assault the victim.

However, the victim testified in this court that the defendant was at the time when he was aware of the victim's injury due to drinking as stated in its reasoning, and stated in detail the detailed methods of assault by the defendant and the circumstances before and after it and after it, and the circumstances of the victim being treated.

The above testimony of the victim not only is consistent with the investigation agency, but also is naturally explaining the situation before and after it, and it cannot be found any contradictory circumstance in the record.

On the day of the instant case, the victim visited the dental department to take an X-ray photograph, and received a diagnosis of 28 days for a long time on the following day, and generated the long time.

These circumstances also correspond to the testimony of the victim.

Considering the above circumstances, it is determined that the testimony of the victim was credibility when the defendant took advantage of the victim's fluorial drinking as stated in its reasoning, and when the defendant took advantage of the victim's fluorial drinking as stated in its reasoning.

Therefore, the facts charged in the instant case are sufficient to be found guilty.