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

At around 12:00 on April 27, 201, the Defendant had been engaged in the work of gathering the victim's house located in the above E in the garden and putting the Defendant's house fleep flick in the garden in a frequent dispute with the victim D (n, 74 years of age) residing in the flick-gun C.

In compliance with this, the victim said, “Is the face through one’s own public bath window,” and “Is the land not cut off.”

Therefore, the Defendant, on the ground that he was suffering from trial expenses as above, took a bath to the victim, and scam the victim’s left-hand scam with the damaged bed, and the Defendant, the husband of the Defendant, who was her husband, her left-hand scams, brought about the victim’s injury to scams, scams, scams, and scams that require two weeks of treatment by making the victim’s right-hand scam.

Accordingly, the defendant, together with the above F, injured the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (in the event of a site and a photograph of the damaged part), a criminal investigation report (in the event of a victim D's injury diagnosis report), an investigation report (in the event of a victim D's injury diagnosis

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted that there is no time when the defendant was a victim. However, the witness D's statement in the court has credibility, and other evidence are fully recognized as being injured by the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the defendant. Thus, other defendant and his defense counsel's assertion are rejected.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.