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

1. Around February 26, 2016, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Drivers, Violence, etc.) stated that he was boarding a F taxi driven by the victim E (the age of 58) and passing through the Helel road located in G at the net City of 1,000, that he was under the influence of alcohol, and that he was assaulting the victim, who is the driver of a vehicle in operation, by drinking back the victim’s back water.

2. The Defendant continued to drive a taxi to the Geum High School near the Geum High School at the time and place indicated in the preceding paragraph of the assault, and when the victim gets out of the victim's face one time as a drinking, depending on the victim gets out of the taxi due to drinking and going back to the wharf, and getting out of the taxi.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness E’s legal statement;

1. Article 5-10 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as to the crime, Article 5-10 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence and

1. From among concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is heavier than the punishment);

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 defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the victim's statement is not consistent with the victim's statement about the details and place of the assault and that it is more concrete, and therefore it is not reliable. Thus, the defendant's statement is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, considering the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court and the whole purport of the arguments, the defendant's statement is identical to the facts of the crime in which the defendant has committed the assault.