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

At around 08:40 on October 14, 2012, the Defendant, at the house of the Victim D (62 years of age) of Suwon-si C Apartment 210 (hereinafter referred to as the “victim D”) in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, on the ground that the neighboring victim had found his/her residence and obstructed his/her taking away and leaving his/her residence, carried the victim’s neck with his/her hand on three occasions, carried the tight part into three times, taken three times the tight part, followed by three times the tight part, and taken three times the 14 days of drinking, and followed the 10 days of drinking trees.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A criminal investigation report (general);

1. Damage photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

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

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant had defended against the victim’s attack act and had not inflicted any injury on the victim as stated in its reasoning. As such, the victim stated that the victim was injured by the victim as stated in its reasoning, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence; in light of the victim’s bodily injury photographs and the site pictures of the victim taken immediately after the date and time of the ruling, the Defendant appears to have exercised considerable tangible power at the time; the Defendant continued to call for the victim after the police was dispatched, and threatened the victim with the victim by drinking, and the Defendant stated that “the victim was pushedly injured with the victim by spathn and spathn with the victim,” at the time of the police investigation, the Defendant made a statement consistent with the judgment and stated in its reasoning.