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

At around 01:50 on July 15, 2013, the Defendant, on the front side of Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, caused the injury to the victim, such as a shore, an euthanasia, which requires treatment for about two weeks on the left side of the victim, on the ground that the victim C (the age of 57) was boarding a D taxi as a customer and arrived at the above place, but a large amount of taxi fee was brought.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and E;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A written statement of C and E;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to on-site visit reports, and photographs of the victim's upper part of the body;

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

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant's assertion that the defendant reported to a police officer, and the victim was in the state of putting the defendant before the police officer clerical error. The defendant's assertion that the defendant was merely booming with the hand that the police officer saw as having arrived, and that there was no time to boom the victim.

2. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, the victim clearly stated that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim in the same manner as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case; the victim consistently stated that the victim was injured; the victim’s wife appears to have been by external physical force in light of the victim’s degree and degree of injury; the victim’s body appears to have been affected by the victim’s external physical force; the police officer dispatched by the report appears to have clearly seen that the Defendant was drinking the victim; and the Defendant’s statement that the victim was a fluent and fluent wife on the chest was difficult to believe in light of the victim’s upper part and degree of injury.