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

The Defendant is a person who operates “D” on the fifth floor of the Seo-gu Daejeon building C.

The Defendant discovered that the victim E (the age of 40) was parked in front of his own business establishment, and asked to park the vehicle well. During this process, the Defendant was in a dispute with each other and became a vision.

On March 26, 2014, around 13:10 on March 26, 2014, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s left face one time on the ground that the victim parked in the front parking lot of the Defendant’s business, despite the absence of such “D” from the fifth floor parking lot of the Seo-gu Daejeon District, Seo-gu, Daejeon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. On-site and victim photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing recording records;

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The Defendant denies a crime against the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; however, the victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court that the Defendant had been her left bucked. Thus, the above statement is credibility in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence.

Since the facts charged are sufficiently recognized.

① After the victim was abused by the Defendant, the victim reported 112 to the five-story carper, and the F, a police officer, stated that he/she was her with her sloping with the Defendant, and immediately after the instant case, he/she was provided with medical treatment from the son of G, and the doctor also stated that he/she had a pain on the left-hand side of the part of the other person’s laba.

② In this court, F, a police officer, taken a buck with the left side of the victim’s claim that he/she was assaulted. The left side of the CCTV was bucked rapidly, and the CCTV was found as a result of checking the CCTV, and the Defendant was not accurately seen.