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

The defendant is a person engaged in agriculture.

On May 17, 2014, at the dry field located in Cheongyang-gun C around 12:00, the Defendant stated that, in the indictment, the Defendant’s method of committing the crime, “as to agrochemicals located in the head of the pesticide gun’s face,” “as to agrochemicals located in the head of the victim’s face,” the Defendant’s partial statement, witness D’s legal statement, etc., the Defendant would have dusted agrochemicals located in the victim’s head of the pesticide gun’s head in the field where the Defendant opened the spring spring water and returned home and passed the dry field.” However, in light of the Defendant’s partial statement, witness D’s legal statement, etc., the Defendant would have roots agrochemicals located in the head of the pesticide gun’s head.

Therefore, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment are revised as above.

In the number of days of treatment, the injury was inflicted on the unexploitable diversity, depression, depression, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A general report and a medical certificate among the reports on internal investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting internal accidents;

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

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

1. 가납명령 형사소송법 제334조 제1항 피고인 및 변호인의 주장에 관한 판단 피고인 및 변호인은, 피고인이 고의로 피해자의 얼굴에 농약을 뿌린 것이 아니라 언쟁을 벌이던 중 피해자가 피고인에게 달려들자 이를 막는 과정에서 농약이 튄 것일 뿐이고, 설사 고의가 인정된다 하더라도 피해자의 공격행위를 방어하기 위한 것으로 정당방위에 해당한다는 취지로 주장한다.

First of all, as to whether there was an intentional injury to the defendant, the situation acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment at the time of the crime of this case, the background of the victim's injury, the part of the victim's injury, and the degree of injury.