At around 00:30 on September 13, 2013, the Defendant d (the age of 51) and immediately met with the victim D (the age of 51) who was living in front of the North-gu C apartment 8 Dong-dong, North Korea-gu, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, and had a dispute over the Defendant’s towing criminal case with respect to which the victim did not have any favorable statement in the Defendant’s towing criminal case, the Defendant left the victim’s face by breaking it over the floor and breaking it over several times, and caused the victim’s face face level, etc. to be cut off twice the number of treatment days.

On October 14, 2013, the Defendant caused the death of a victim who was receiving medical treatment at a F Hospital located in North Korea-Gu E on the part of the Defendant on the part of the Defendant, due to brain training and paralysis due to acute smoking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Each photograph and investigation report attached to the investigation report (No. 16 pages of evidentiary records) (the victim's doctor in charge of another investigation);

1. Seizure records;

1. Each request for appraisal attached to each evidentiary document (No. 111, 121 pages of evidentiary records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to death diagnosis documents for victims attached to an investigation report (Evidence No. 118 pages);

1. Determination as to the assertion of the accused and the defense counsel under Article 259(1) of the Criminal Code of the relevant criminal facts

1. The summary of the claim did not have a possibility of expectation as to the victim's death due to the injury inflicted by the defendant.

2. Since the crime of injury resulting in death is an aggravated crime, it is necessary to anticipate the outcome of death in addition to the crime of injury in order to recognize the crime of injury, and it is necessary to strictly examine specific circumstances such as the degree of injury and response status of the victim.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the Defendant was wearing a safety shoes at the front of the new site, and after committing the crime.