When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On September 1, 2016, at the D real estate office located in Sung-nam City, A around 15:00, the Defendant used the victim's body match with the victim E and Si expenses due to the problem of sales commission, and assaulted the victim by cutting down the flaps by cutting down the flab, spinging the flab, etc. of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the accused has committed violence several times, and that the accused denies and does not reflect the offense, etc. is disadvantageous.

However, the part concerning the crime of assaulting is not found guilty as follows, and the amount of fine prescribed in the summary order shall be reduced in part by taking into account the equity in the amount of fine for the summary order received by the victim.

1. On September 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 15:00 on September 1, 2016, at the D real estate office located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si; (b) as a matter of sale commission, the victim E and Si expenses were caused; (c) the victim E and Si expenses were caused by the flabing of dubs of the victim; and (d) the victim’s physical fighting was debrised, spileed, and sponsed, and

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on the evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010).