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

The victims C and the victims D are women.

On August 30, 2012, at around 08:35, the Defendant added a fluor with a woman on the ground that the Defendant, who was walking on the road by the victim C (the age of 37), was able to walk a light, following the legal building located at the port, Dong-dong, Seoyang-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, Gyeonggi-do, 891-1.

The Defendant, while putting the window on the driver’s seat of a vehicle driven by the victim C with a knife and knife, expressed the Defendant’s desire to “flick this flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick).”

The Defendant, who gets off from the vehicle, took the victim D (at 18 years of age), called “I would like to take back the dog . I want to . I want to take back the dog ....” The Defendant saw the victim D’s left head at one time.

In addition, the Defendant reported this to the victim C's face, frightened the victim C's clothes, frightened the victim's clothes, and frighted the victim C's chest with a bad hand.

As a result, the defendant suffered from the victim D about about 10 days of treatment, thereby causing the injury to the sacrificing and sacrificing, and committing violence against the victim C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C, D, and E;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning E and D;

1. Each police statement of C or D;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of the investigation report (the medical certificate for injury) and the investigation report (the hearing of a person with a shote)

1. The Defendant asserted (in the part of the injury and assault) that he did not commit an assault against the victim C or inflicted an injury on the victim D, and that he did not commit an intentional injury, and that part of the facts charged is denied by asserting that the above victim’s wife cannot be viewed as an injury under the Criminal Act.

2. The following circumstances duly admitted by the evidence duly admitted by the judgment, namely, the victim D was under dispute with the Defendant as a result of the fluent C’s compacting of the vehicle.