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

On January 4, 2016, around 09:05, the Defendant met with the victim D (51) who had an unfeasible appraisal due to noise problems between floors in front of the fourth floor of Gwangju Northern apartment house 335, Dong-gu, 335, Dong-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant made a assault to 1 to boom the cream on the ground that he did not receive the victim D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Written statements of D, statements made by the police about D;

1. The result of reproduction and viewing of the Handphone image US drive (the accused and the defense counsel do not deny that there was no assault committed against the victim D at the date and time recorded in the facts constituting the offense in the judgment of the accused, and at the place where the victim D had been dead;

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the above evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it can be recognized that the defendant committed assaulting the victim D with the victim D at one time, as shown in the facts charged by the defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and defense counsel.

1) The victim D was the date and time stated in the facts of the crime in the investigation agency and in this court, and at the place where the defendant had left her with one son.

The statements are consistent and clearly made, and their statements are consistent with the results of reproduction and viewing of Handphone image US drive as follows 2). Thus, the credibility of the statements can be recognized.

Although it seems that the Defendant and the victim D’s noise problem were not good, in a case where the victim’s statement is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there exist any separate and reliable materials to deem that it is extremely reliable from an objective perspective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do362, Apr. 15, 2005). Thus, the victim’s statement cannot be rejected.

2) This case’s crime was committed against the Handphone image USB, which was recorded before and after the crime of this case.