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

1. On April 28, 2015, around 18:05, the Defendant: (a) went to the house of the victim D (Inn, 59 years of age) located in Jinando-gun, Jinando-gun; (b) and (c) went to the dwelling room without the consent of the victim; and (d) went to the dwelling of the victim.

2. At around 18:10 on the same day as the statement in paragraph 1, the injured Defendant saw the victim’s satise at one time on the left side of the horse that she would come from the victim D, and put the victim’s satise on the inner part, satis, satis, and satise on the part of the inner part, satis, and satise that the victim’s satise had to take several times with the victim’s satise, and that the victim

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Each investigation report (including 39 pages of a photograph of the victim's right-hand sloping, etc.) and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes in a medical certificate of injury;

1. Article 319 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of an injury and the selection of a fine) concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

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

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. On April 28, 2015, the Defendant, at around 18:10 on April 28, 2015, expressed the attitude that the victim’s body was threatened by considering the victim’s body, such as the victim F (60 years of age) with a stone with a stone stone (10cm, she will be exempted from a fine) that she was able to listen to D’s rain at D’s house located in Jinando-gun, Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, and return to D’s house, and returned to D’s house.

2. The facts charged in this part of the judgment are crimes falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the records, the victim expressed his/her intention not to punish the Defendant on December 9, 2015, which is after the date of the instant indictment.