If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

At around 23:40 on May 2, 2013, the Defendant, when drinking alcoholic beverages in person with the owner and the victim C (57 years of age) in person, was under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and the said victim “in person so doing,” and was under the influence of the victim, she again went out of the victim’s knife and again returned to the victim’s body, and turned out the victim’s body body again. The Defendant dumpeded the victim a velife of the velife at the victim’s velife of 6 weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case regarding the dismissal of prosecution pursuant to Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the summary of the assault in the instant case was assaulted by the Defendant on two occasions at the E main point located in Gwangju-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul, on May 27, 2013, around 22:00, around May 27, 2013.

However, this is a crime falling under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Code, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Code. According to the written agreement, the victim can recognize the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on September 23, 2013, which is after the institution of the instant indictment.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecution against assault among the facts charged in this case is dismissed.

The applicant for the judgment on the part of the application for a compensation order sought payment of KRW 3,133,600 (the amount of consolation money of KRW 587,600,000) to the defendant.

However, according to the contents of the agreement, it can be recognized that the defendant and the applicant for compensation have reached an agreement under the civil law on September 23, 2013, and the existence of the defendant's liability is not clear.