2. 50,000 won where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

On March 13, 2012, around 16:40 on March 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) committed several assaults against the victim E, the victim E, and the victim’s breath, who spathdd the Defendant who spathddddd the Defendant, at a mobile phone agent next to C’s overo point at the entrance of the Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu D market at Changwon-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by a witness F in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

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

1. On March 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 16:40 on March 13, 2012, the charge was committed by the police officer F, who was parked on the ground that the police officer F, who was dispatched after receiving a report of assault at the street, at the entrance and after the entrance of the Seongbuk-gu D market at Sungwon-si, Seongbuk-si, and was parked on the ground that the police officer would fighting would fight and stop down, thereby impairing the right right side of the H patrol car belonging to the Changwon-gu, Changwon-gu, Changwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, thereby impairing its utility.

2. The judgment is based on the evidence corresponding to the above facts charged. The statement of the police F sent to the site at the time of the incident in this court and in the investigative agency, the statement of the E investigative agency in which the defendant and the body of the defendant were fighting (However, the above statement was prepared by E, not by himself, but by a slope I, but by a slope I; E's witness examination was not completed due to the impossibility of summons due to the impossibility of identification of the location) and the photograph of the damaged state of salking, which is attached to the investigation report (damage of the patrol vehicle, etc.). However, while the witness J, C, and K who appeared to the site at the time of the incident, was cut to the above court and the defendant was cut to the above elbbb, not the defendant was broken, but the defendant was faced with the body of the defendant while the body of the defendant was sealed by the police during the fighting with E.