If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Defendant

A is a C employee in the building B.

The Defendant: (a) around 11:00 on 27, 2017, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-do, 51, Yari-ro, Yari-gu, Yari-ro, Yari-ro, Yari-ro, Yari-ro, Yari-ro, Yari-gu, Yari

Dr. Sheet favokings;

For the reason of having the intent of "a drinking spawn", etc., D intended "battos", "battos and bottles", etc., and fats and fats and bats were used.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Application of video Acts and subordinate statutes contained in photographs and CCTV images CDs with a dynamic image closure;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which means the cost of lawsuit

1. The alleged defendant and his defense counsel did not have any physical contact with the victim at the time and place in the judgment of the defendant, such as breathing or pusheding the victim’s bat, etc. Even so, even if so, this constitutes a legitimate defense by having the victim batd first, and batling the defendant’s bats, etc., and bating the Defendant’s bats, etc., and thus,

2. In full view of the following facts: (a) the evidence duly adopted and examined; (b) each witness’s legal testimony and the images contained in CCTV images (a) the victim’s plucking, plucking, and plucking, etc. of the victim after the beginning of 51 can be seen; and (c) the victim’s plucking, around 55 seconds, can also be seen as removing the Defendant’s son from his her own neck) the Defendant could sufficiently recognize that the Defendant dumped and pushed the victim’s breath.

On the other hand, the victim's president and the defendant's employee who owned the shares in the above commercial building have become an excessive number of people in the parking lot in the judgment of the court in the following circumstances: management fees are not good for each other due to disputes.