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

On June 11, 2019, at around 00:20, the victim D, who lives in the next house at the dwelling entrance of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the Jinhae-gu B building C, Changwon-si, Seoul, found the defendant's house noise problem, and used a large sound, and assaulted the victim's candles, on the ground that the victim D was able to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of each statute on photographs of damage;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The Defendant asserts that, as to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the victim only pushed down the part of the victim’s breath in the process of his breath and resisting breath in a passive manner, and the breath of the breath’s breath in the process

However, in view of each of the above evidence, it can be confirmed that immediately after the instant case, the part of the victim’s neck has changed red, that there is a flicking flick on the left side and flicking part of the Defendant’s Trts is teared.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the above evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was not merely resisting the victim in the course of dispute with the victim, but actively breathing and shakeing the dub of the victim. Thus, the defendant can be fully found guilty of the facts charged in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that the victim was found in the office of the defendant due to noise problems and that the defendant was faced with the trial cost in the process of disputeing the trial cost first is favorable to the defendant.

However, prior to the instant case, the Defendant had a previous criminal record related to violence, and the Defendant’s own view, such as enhancing sium by hand, etc., was the primary aspect of the victim’s hair.