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

On March 16, 2015, at around 19:30 on March 16, 2015, the Defendant assaulted the victim E who visited the management office due to vehicle damage compensation in the main house of apartment in the management office at the D apartment management office where the Defendant in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government was working as the managing office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of CCTV CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of not guilty part of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the order of provisional payment is as follows: (a) the victim E, as indicated in the judgment of the Defendant, has been pushed over the floor and thus, the victim suffered an injury to the left-hand part of the sufficient 14 days, the left-hand part, the left-hand part of the lower-hand part, and the left-hand part of the water base.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the prosecution alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise, in view of the following circumstances acknowledged by this court, based on the evidence adopted by the prosecution.

(1) The form in which the victim seems to have any inconvenience in the course of accompanying the victim immediately after the victim was pushed ahead of the victim, and immediately entering the management office, does not seem to be completely visible.

② On March 17, 2015, the victim’s death diagnosis report was made on March 17, 2015, on the right bridge, right part, and the right part of the road. The victim was diagnosed on the basis of the victim’s statement, not the objective result of the inspection, but the victim was found to have died in the apartment stairs. The victim stated that the doctor was sealed from the apartment stairs, contrary to the fact at the time.

(3) The defendant is merely a confidential one out of the management office.