If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

At around 04:10 on January 24, 2019, the Defendant, at the house of the Defendant in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, 2019, committed assault on the floor of the victim D (Influence, 31 years of age) who had a relationship with the Defendant, while having a verbal dispute with the victim D (Influence, 31 years of age) who was in a relationship with him, boomed the head of the victim once with the hand floor, and boomed the victim over the pushed floor, boomed the victim's face and body, walking the victim's face and body on several occasions, and b

In this respect, the defendant carried dangerous objects and assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of D;

1. Damage photographs;

1. 112 Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the 112 Report Processing Table;

1. Relevant Article 261 of the Criminal Act and Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines concerning criminal facts;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the defendant was unable to assault the victim by carrying a telegraphicul.

2. Determination

A. The crime of violence in the relevant legal doctrine refers to the exercise of physical tangible force against a human body, which does not necessarily require any physical contact with a victim, and thus, it constitutes an assault as an exercise of unlawful tangible force against a victim even though the victim did not directly contact the body of the victim, in cases where he/she did an act to display or throw away a hand or an object as he/she takes a bath near the victim.

(Supreme Court Decision 89Do1406 Decided February 13, 1990, Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5716 Decided January 10, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4126 Decided July 24, 2008) B.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the body of the victim is the method of unloading telegraph, which is a dangerous object, close to the victim, as stated in the facts charged by the defendant.