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

On December 13, 2013, at around 00:20, the Defendant assaulted the victim E in front of the D restaurant located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, by taking the victim’s desire to “Cronia.” On December 13, 2013, the Defendant used the victim’s desire to “Cronia.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged victims;

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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant asserts that the victim's statement is not reliable, such as the victim's statement does not contain any fact when the victim was living together, the victim's statement changes the damaged part, and the defendant's statement that he was living together with the victim, even if he knew of the fact that he was living together.

2. In light of the records, the victim’s “injury circumstance” column of the written statement prepared at the time of the first report by the victim stated that “the two sides face is drinking,” but the “injury content” column is recognized as the fact that the victim stated that “the two sides of the two sides knick with ear and knick,” and the victim stated that he/she was on the left side and the right side body of the two sides of the face in this court.

According to this, the statement on the damaged part of the victim can be seen as changing.

However, the victim stated clearly in this court that the defendant was placed at the left side of the victim and the right side side of the victim's loss by drinking the victim's hand. When the defendant sees the victim's right side and sees the victim's right side, it seems that each degree of shock can only be reduced to some degree. Accordingly, the victim's credibility of the victim's statement can be lowered just because the victim stated the part as the damaged part.