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

The defendant works for public service at the Seo-gu community service center located in Daejeon Metropolitan City.

1. On November 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 12:20, on the street in front of the Seosan-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon; (b) on the street in front of the 1808, Seo-gu, Seogu, Daejeon, the Defendant: (c) considered that the Defendant spits or spits the victim, who spits the victim’s spits (e.g., 15 years old) said that the Defendant spits the victim’s spits on the floor, but he again spits the victim’s spit; (d) made the victim’s b

2. At around 12:45 on the same day, the Defendant was aware of the victim E (the 15-year-old age), who was contacted by the phone that D had been exposed to D, by reporting the spitation on the floor of the mos, spiting it, and spiting it to the victim, and spiting the back of the victim. However, the Defendant was aware of the victim’s mospitation from the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed assaulting the victim by taking the beer knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and D;

1. Report on the occurrence of the case, report on investigation, application of photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 261 of the Criminal Act and Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

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

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

1. The alleged defendant did not have the head debt of the victim D and did not threaten the victim E with beerer's knife.

2. Determination

A. The victim D consistently stated from the investigative agency to the present court that the Defendant had consistently maintained head debt.