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

The Defendant is a person hospitalized in B Hospital 206 due to alcohol addiction, and the victim C (V, 39 years of age) is a graduate-type person who is hospitalized in B Hospital 207 at the same hospital 207, and there is approximately three months ago.

At around 21:00 on March 26, 2018, when the Defendant opened the smoking room entrance in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Hospital D, the victim who had been in front of the place where the mash was closed is the time for the Defendant to speak “the opening of the door” and the dispute arises.

On April 16, 2019, the defendant, while taking a dispute, applied for amendments to a bill of amendment to a bill of amendment to a bill of amendment that reads "the defendant's chest part of the victim's chest shall be changed to "the defendant's chest part of the victim's chest shall be tightly tightly tight and tightly tightly tightly tight," and there is no objection on the part of the defendant. This court decided that the identity of the facts charged does not infringe on the identity of the facts charged and permitted amendments to a bill of amendment to a bill of amendment.

The victim suffered from a 28-day injury to a scarke, closed, scarke, and scarkes that require treatment for 28-day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. E’s statement recording in the third protocol of trial;

1. Results of the inquiry and reply to the F members of this Court;

1. According to the opinion and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the opinion states that “The opinion is found on the upper left side of the chest spel in the early wave,” while the column of “the injury level” in the letter of the injury diagnosis states that “the opinion on the upper side of the chest spel in the early wave test is confirmed by the frame of the chest spel and the right side at the right side.” However, it appears that the doctor G described the letter of the injury diagnosis and it appears that it clearly erred by the “spel speln” in the letter of the injury examination by the doctor, and it appears that this Court F.