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

The defendant and the victim C are the workplace pay that works in the original dong of the D Company Factory and the boiler room.

On August 19, 2013, at around 22:50 on August 19, 2013, on the ground that the victim C was pushed away from the Defendant’s interest in the D Company Factory nuclear plant and the boiler room, and the victim was faced with the victim’s interest for two weeks, resulting in an injury to the right-hand side of the bridge, which requires two weeks’ treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and E;

1. Application of the police interrogation protocol to C and the injury diagnosis certificate attached thereto to the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse

1. The summary of the argument is that the defendant was injured by the victim because the victim was aware of his/her will at the time of the instant case, and there is no fact that the defendant was a person suspected of committing an injury to the victim.

2. In determining the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court below, as well as whether the contents of the statements themselves conform to the rationality, logic, morality, or rule of experience, physical evidence, or the statements made by a third party, as well as whether the statements made by the victim, etc., including the appearance and attitude of the witness who is participating in the witness statement in the open court after being sworn before a judge, and the appearance of the statements made by the witness in the witness examination protocol, such as the pencing of various circumstances that make it difficult for the witness to record, should evaluate the credibility of the statements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 209; 2008Do7917, Apr. 15, 2005; 2004Do36262, Jun. 21, 2012).