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

B and C are married couple, D is the branch of B, and the defendant is the employee of the enterprise operated by Defendant D.

B, C, and D, around July 24, 2016, in the right angles behind the building in Gui-si E on July 24, 2016, and C, while the taxi was set up and talked with a taxi engineer under the influence of alcohol, if the F, who was unable to proceed with the vehicle due to this demand to sound the horn and turn off, demanded that the F, thereby making the F, set off the vehicle from the vehicle, and then “I,” after having the F, write off the vehicle from the vehicle.

” 라면 서 양손으로 F의 머리채를 붙잡아 끌고 다니고, 이에 가세하여 B도 F의 머리채를 붙잡고 F의 배 부위 등을 발로 차고, D도 F의 배 부위를 발로 찼다.

피고 인은 위 일 시경 위 F의 남편인 피해자 G(33 세) 가 C을 말리는 것을 보고, B은 피해자의 멱살과 머리채를 잡아 흔들고, 피해자가 휴대폰을 이용하여 현장 상황을 촬영하려 하자 피고인은 휴대폰을 들고 있는 피해자의 손을 발로 찼다.

As a result, the Defendant, in collaboration with B, inflicted bodily injury on the victim, such as the 1st head of the 1st unit, which requires approximately four weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of the F, G, and D, written records of the examination of suspect with respect to the F, G, D, C, B, and F, written records of the examination of suspect with respect to B prepared by the prosecutor, written examinations of injury, and each investigation report (the details of CCTV verification and method CCTV verification);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Article 2 (2) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. for Criminal Facts, Article 2 of the Act on the Selection of Punishment of Violences, etc., Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is examined, and the fact that the defendant recognizes the criminal facts of this case and reflects his mistake, and the extent of the type of the defendant exercised is relatively minor.