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

On June 11, 2012, at around 21:30, the Defendant, in the front corridor B, 301, in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, in the course of the victim D, E, and the dispute with the victim due to inter-floor noise, was sealed with the wall by taking the victim E in his hand, and was pushed the victim D's knife by taking the victim D's knife, the victim D's knife, the victim D's knife for about 10 days of medical treatment, and the victim Eul suffered an injury to the right knife, knife, knife, and tension that require medical treatment for about 14 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and D;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol on D, Defendant, E, or G;

1. Each police statement made to G, H, Defendant, and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each injury diagnosis letter;

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

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. On June 11, 2012, at around 21:30, the Defendant jointly carried out with the wife G, and at around 21:30, the Defendant, in the front corridor B B, 301, the Defendant: (a) brought about a dispute between D and D due to noise; (b) was pushed down by the title of D on his hand on the ground that D and D were at the time of his her her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’

2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not inflict any injury on D, in collaboration with G, on the ground that the Defendant did not have any scambling of the parts of the Defendant’s lawsuit, when G scambling back the parts of D, or when G scam and

3. The statement in D police and in this Court, as well as in this Court, whether the judgment G has followed the D's backwards, and whether the head is traced or not, shall be admitted as evidence consistent with it.