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

around 13:45 on May 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the victim D, who was found as an apartment deposit issue in the front corridor No. 101, 409 of the apartment house C apartment 101, 409, opened the door of the apartment house and got out of the disturbance, the Defendant d's Chewing gue, and d's money.

The victim's face, as well as her face, she saw as well as her face in the house, had the victim her face omitted, and caused the victim's her loss to fall into the victim's left hand, and caused the victim's her loss in the part of the loss requiring medical treatment for about 28 days by entering the victim's left hand on the part of the victim's hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A detailed statement of the processing of cases to be reported 111 (No. 31 pages);

1. Application of each Act and subordinate statute of an injury diagnosis, opinion, and photograph;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion and judgment on Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant does not inflict an injury by assaulting the victim as stated in the facts constituting a crime.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal principles (1) The probative value of evidence is left to the discretion of a judge, but such judgment must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be such a degree that there is no reasonable doubt. However, this does not require it to the extent of excluding all possible doubts, and the rejection of evidence which is recognized as having probative value is not permissible by causing a suspicion without reasonable grounds beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The term “reasonable doubt” refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of a fact inconsistent with the facts requiring proof based on logical and empirical rules, not all questions and correspondences, and it refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of a fact that is inconsistent with the facts requiring proof. Therefore, the circumstances favorable to the defendant.