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

On April 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 01:30, on the ground that the victim E (year 46) in the “D” entertainment drinking club located in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter referred to as “D”) runs counter to the Defendant’s back head part and left part of the Defendant’s back head part; and (b) took back the face of the Defendant’s back part by drinking, and carried out the e-mail with two hand; (c) opened head cover, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment; and (d) damaged the e-mail of the audience play; and (e) damaged the e-mail of the audience play; and (e) caused the e-mail of the e-mail.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of E and G;

1. An interrogation protocol of police officers against E, G, and the accused;

1. The written diagnosis (E) of injury (E) asserts that the Defendant was merely a part of the Defendant’s defense against the E’s harmful act, and that it did not cause injury to E. According to the aforementioned evidence, E and G stated that E and the Defendant were flickly fighting, or fighting the body, and that the Defendant was above the floor while fighting the body, and that the Defendant was also flick with E and flick, and that the Defendant was also flicking the floor, and that E did not have any self-harm. Comprehensively taking account of these statements, the Defendant’s application of the Act and subordinate statutes against the E’s harmful act can be recognized as a fact that the Defendant was flicking the flick and flicking the flick, and

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Optional fine;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act may be deemed to have been considered in light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime. However, this may not be deemed to have already been reflected in the summary order; the Defendant’s history of crime related to violence is one time of suspended execution, three times of fines, and the amount of fines prescribed in the summary order cannot be deemed to have been imposed in light of equity with similar cases.