On October 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) had a victim C (n, 51 years of age) on his/her own driving B taxi; (b) had arrived at the entrance of his/her apartment in Ulsan-gu D apartment on October 20, 2017; and (c) had been asked from the injured party to enter the apartment site, and was in dispute upon the demand that the injured party enter the apartment site, the Defendant was going to close the taxi without shutting the back of the taxi; and (c) had the victim go ahead of the taxi, and (d) had the victim close the taxi.

Chewingly, the part of the cab, which is a dangerous object, was damaged by the victim’s left part of the string part of the string of the string, thereby going beyond the victim’s right side by taking about two weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. On-site photographs and black stuff photographs;

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

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act include: (a) as a taxi driver who closely linked to the safety of the general public, the Defendant is punished for a conflict with the ordinary demand of passengers; and (b) the subordinate victim is provided as a taxi; and (c) the subordinate victim is provided as a taxi; (d) the nature of the crime is bad in light of the details and content of the crime; (c) there is a high risk of criminal law; (d) there is a similar power subject to punishment by assault using dangerous objects; and (e) there is no accusation from the injured party. Therefore, the corresponding punishment is inevitable.

However, considering the fact that this court shows the attitude to reflect on the crime, that the degree of injury is not much serious, and that there are many criminal records of violence, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.