B shall be punished by a fine of 1,500,000 won.

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

Defendant

B around November 26, 2014, around 23:40, at the front of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, the victim A (46 tax) and parking problems, the victim's sat and side saturf were flue at each time, and the victim's sat and side saturf were sated with his hand, and the sather candle with his hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police officer;

1. Application of the closure photographs and the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the CDs;

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 portion not guilty under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant A) of the Provisional Payment Order

1. Defendant A, at the time and place as indicated in the judgment of the court below, assaulted B by putting spatherbling b in his hand against Sifeb, B, and B due to parking problems.

2. As evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, there are B’s statements in investigation agencies and this court, F’s statements in this court, and images of damaged parts of the instant case.

However, according to the black stuff image that had been taken at the time, Defendant A could not find the flapsing of b, and Defendant A and B could be recognized as having a separate fact at the time of arrival of the police vehicle at the site, while Defendant A and B are separate from each other at the time of arrival of the police vehicle at the site, and they do not live with a mutual flab. In light of this, each of the statements made by B and F is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in this case only with the other evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the above verdict of innocence is publicly announced in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.