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

Around 18:05 on July 15, 2019, the Defendant continued a psychological movement program for disabled children at the C Welfare Center of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (C Welfare Center)’s psychological movement room for disabled children, and even if the victim D was on the front part of the school that became two parts of the victim D, the victim got her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her part

As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury upon the victim in need of approximately four weeks of medical treatment due to salt pansty, tensions, spawds, spawds and spawds, and spawds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Investigation report (STV image verification);

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the Defendant does not act intentionally against the victim, but that the victim’s injury was caused by the Defendant’s behavior in light of the circumstances in which the victim took lessons over the disabled child normally even after the accident, and that the accident in this case occurred in the course of the psychological exercise program for the disabled child, and thus, the illegality is excluded.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, at the time of the instant case, the victim argued that the Defendant was showing a balanced balance between the two parts of the school that the Defendant was unable to maintain a balance, and that the Defendant was in the vicinity of the school where the victim was enrolled for the purpose of safety inspection. However, at the time, the Defendant’s behavior appears to be an action to interfere with the victim who was going against a balanced balance, and the Defendant argued that the Defendant was frightd with her arm's length around the school area while she was frightd with the school area. However, according to the evidence, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s behavior was a frightly and accurately.