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

Around 16:00 on February 3, 2016, the Defendant was aware of the victim E (15 years of age) in Yangju-si C and 1st century for one month. On the ground that the Defendant was aware of the victim E (15 years of age), the Defendant was aware of the victim’s right right, making the victim’s side of the victim one time, making the victim’s face and back part of the victim’s back back to drinking, making the victim’s face and back part of the victim’s back back to drinking, and then the Defendant was spambling the victim for about two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (Submission of a medical certificate of injury), investigation report (referring to the victim's body photograph and the submission of disability welfare cards);

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which costs of lawsuit

1. The gist of the argument is that the defendant only gets back to the right of the victim and gets her hand to her hand, and there is no injury as stated in the facts charged, and the victim committed an act of preventing another student from committing assaulting. Thus, it constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment: (a) the victim’s statement on the background and content of the instant injury is consistent and concrete, and thus credibility exists; (b) the victim’s statement is consistent with the victim’s statement; (c) the photographic image of the victim’s part of the diagnosis report and the damaged part is also consistent with the victim’s statement; (d) the Defendant, by hand from the police, was found to have carried the victim’s right back back and 4 to 5 times the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the victim; and (e) the F was described to the effect that the Defendant was able to write back the victim’s ear in this court, and that the victim was able to do so beyond the direction of the victim’s body. However, the above statement is made to the effect that the Defendant was put.