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

1. At around 10:20 on July 15, 2013, the injured Defendant inflicted injury on the victim D (Nam, 62 years of age) (the above apartment security guards) who had been the said apartment apartment complex 2 complex 108, in front of the said apartment complex 108, on the following grounds: (a) a defect: (b) the victim, on the ground that “in the case of an electric cable prior to the stage, he did not have a bridge, so far as he did not move away from the floor,” and (c) the victim, “at any time and at any time, cut off the electric cable at the inside, she would have so cut off, she would have caused the victim’s injury to the victim, such as a dump for preferential treatment, which requires treatment for about 14 days on one occasion by taking the victim at once.

2. On July 15, 2013, around 19:30 on July 15, 2013, the Defendant assaulted the Defendant against the her mother and the her part of the security guards used by the her for the reason that the electric wires in the apartment was cut in front of the above apartment complex before the end of the apartment complex, and the Defendant got off the her mother and her part in order to be compensated for the medical expenses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. D's legal statement;

1. Part of the police interrogation protocol of the defendant

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A report on the occurrence of violence;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Judgment on the defendant's assertion in a medical certificate

1. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant has not captured the part concerning the bones of minerals of the victim once by drinking;

2. In light of the records, the victim consistently states that from the beginning of the investigation to the court, the part on the bones of luminous bones was made by the defendant on one occasion by drinking from the defendant. The victim's statement and the doctor treating the victim also state the victim's main disease as "surgical, inner, and inner," and the part and degree of the victim's injury as "surging, inner, and surging, surging, surging, and hole" respectively. In full view of the records, the defendant's statement and intent to treat the victim's main disease as "surgical, inner, and surging, surging,

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

The laws and regulations;