Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

At around 17:45 on September 19, 2018, the Defendant, an apartment security guard, talked with C, an employee of the management office, who was outside of the break time at the time, to look at and conduct patrol, and the victim D (the age of 64) voluntarily set patrol hours, talked with the victim about the patrol duty in the neighboring play place while he was going to the guard room, and talked with each other about the patrol duty. Since then, the victim was inside the guard room, followed the victim by entering the said apartment guard room, and assaulted the victim at one time on the left side of the victim by drinking from the above apartment guard room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and C;

1. 112 Report disposal slips;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (see, e.g., Article 334(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, Etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da15444, Sept. 20, 2019) (hereinafter referred to as “B apartment guard”) determines that the statement of a e.g., a e., a e., a e.g., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e., a e.,