The defendant is not guilty of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement).

In a state where the Defendant lacks the ability to distinguish alcohol from drinking alcohols or make decisions under the influence of a stroke, which is a stroke, the Defendant: (a) expressed the victim E (the age of 39) who is asked to answer his/her defense inside Daegu-gu Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, about May 10, 2014; (b) expressed the victim E (the age of 39) “Crobol”; (c) expressed the victim E (the age of 39) to return home; (d) however, the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to return home to home; and (e) took one time the lower part of the part in need of medical treatment between 14 days and the victim’s right hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (Attachment of a medical certificate for injury);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental disorders;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. The judgment of mental disorder as to the allegation of mental disorder under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the background of the crime, the damage to the victim, and the fact that the victim sought the Defendant’s wife by agreement) was taken by prescribing the stroke as a water surface disability treatment device from March 12, 2013 to the time of the occurrence of the instant case, and the fact that on the day of the instant case, the Defendant was in a weak mental and physical state, such as drinking-out and drinking-out snow snow, etc., but it was also true that the Defendant was suffering from chronic infection to the police officer at the time. At the time, the Defendant was aware of the fact that he was about suffering from chronic infection, and that he was able to see F as D employee while intending to stroke from the Defendant’s side, and the Defendant’s actions before and after the Defendant’s crime.