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

The defendant and the victim C(the age of 47) are those operating a shopping mall as they are, and the victim C and the victim D(the age of 48) are married couple.

On February 22, 2012, around 13:15, the Defendant discovered that the truck was parked in the zone where the parking or stopping of the truck was prohibited on the road before Asan City, and found that the victim C tried to photograph the truck with a mobile phone camera, and became a vision, and two times the victim C’s breath with the breath, and breath with the breath, the victim D’s upper part of the breath, where the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath, where the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Application of statutes on the photograph of the case

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The Defendant asserts that at the time of determining the Defendant’s assertion on Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, he only saw the victim C’s breath, and that there was no fact that the victim C’s breath was bread by breath or d’s breath.

In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence as seen earlier, the victims have made a relatively consistent statement from the investigative agency to the present court, and the police officers have taken photographs sent out and taken the victim's D's injury, and the victims have received the same diagnosis as indicated in the ruling on the same day, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant inflicted injury on the victims as stated in the ruling at the time.