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

On November 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 09:25, the Defendant entered the victim E (57 years old) and sand lower from the ground of the D sand lower part of the wife population C as a vision for the victim’s face; (b) in the process of fighting the victim’s body with the victim, the victim’s face part is frighted on the floor; and (c) the victim’s face part is frighted on the floor for about six months; (d) however, the Defendant stated the written indictment for observing the progress between approximately 26 months to the victim. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant issued the medical certificate of injury, the Defendant written the written indictment for observing the victim’s face part as an accurate expression recognized.

In this regard, the injury was caused by the degradation of force, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Fire-proof report, 112 report processing table, on-site photograph;

1. CCTV CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to medical reports on injuries and replies to medical records to Seoul National University Hospital in each branch;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is a punishment for the victim's injury to the victim. The defendant committed a dangerous price act with the victim's face, and due to this, the defendant committed a permanent injury to the right side of the victim's face up to the heart. It is not easy that the nature of the crime is light, and there is little possibility of criticism in that the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware that he committed the crime of this case without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of this paper.

However, it appears that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, and the defendant does not unilaterally use violence to the victim, and the defendant and the victim seem to have caused the crime of this case by contingently in the process of punishing for trial expenses.