B shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

Defendant

B If the above fine is not paid, KRW 100,000.

For the reason that “the victim said that he was able to flab, and flabed and pushed down a breath of the victim’s flab, thereby causing approximately three weeks of medical treatment to the victim, thereby cutting down the 4-day left flab of the victim’s flab.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant A) of the Provisional Payment Order;

1. On December 8, 2017, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the Defendant’s damage to the floor by cutting down the platform of a party area equivalent to KRW 80,00 won on the ground that the game was completed during the day-to-day game in Gwangju Northern-gu; and (b) caused the Defendant’s damage to the floor of a party area equivalent to KRW 80,00 in the market price on the ground that it was difficult for the Defendant to perform the e-mail due to the completion of

2. As evidence as shown in the above facts charged, H’s written statement (written statement to the effect that the CC is cut off on the platform of the party) and the police’s statement to H (written statement to the effect that the CC is set up on the bottom) and F’s statement to the police (written statement to the effect that the CC is set up on the floor) were attempted to be taken into consideration as well as the statement to the police’s statement to F (written statement to the effect that the CC is set up on both hand), etc. were written.

(1) However, in each of the above statements, H stated that “I am off a documentary belt to the Gu table. I am off a documentary tape,” and that “I am off a documentary tape in both hands,” and that there is a difference in the statement on the method of destroying the documentary tape, ② H already stated that “I am unable to see it accurately” at the time of the above police investigation (Evidence No. 40 pages of the evidence record), and in this court, whether the person who damaged the documentary is the defendant.