If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On February 24, 2013, at around 2:00, the Defendant: (a) inflicted injury on the victim F (n, 18 years of age) who was wraped with E in front of the D subject point of the C building C, Haju-si, on the ground that the victim F (n, 18 years of age) said F (n, f.e., the victim’s face at one time by hand; and (b) caused the victim’s injury, such as the sofamination of a son who needs to be treated for about two weeks

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. F statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. A report on investigation;

1. A complaint;

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

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

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion is only the defendant unilaterally committed an assault from the victim and his/her behavior E and G, and there is no fact that he/she inflicted an injury upon the victim as described in the facts charged.

2. The judgment of this court is based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, i.e., ① the victim was subject to violence from the investigative agency to this court, ② the victim was given medical treatment from the hospital following the day following the crime of this case, and ② the victim was issued with a written diagnosis of injury in compliance with the part and condition of the victim (such as save, saves, saves, etc.). ③ the witness was given a statement that corresponds to the facts charged of this case in the telephone call at the police station, ④ the defendant was unilaterally subject to violence from the victim’s act, but the police was investigated. However, the victim was subject to the investigation at the police station, and was able to defend the victim.