If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

On August 23, 2016, the Defendant and B entered the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1st floor “D” restaurant for light meals on August 23, 2016.

E With respect to the amount of goods not received from E in the past, the injured party F(43) who is his employee of E and the victim F(43), B, who had a dispute over the amount of goods not received from E, shall be deemed to have been the victim’s “Is the victim still borrowed from E.”

“.....”

Accordingly, the victim's defect that "I am, I am, I am, I am you am, B sold with the damaged person, etc. by the mick cover on the tabler, and the defendant who was unlocked and went into the restaurant again, when doing a dispute as above, was able to sell the victim by the above mick cover.

As a result, the defendant and B jointly put about a multi-faceted typology that requires approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. The statements and photographs of victims;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Submission of a medical certificate of injury);

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. The grounds for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are against the accused, the victim’s damage is minor, and the circumstances that may be considered in the course of committing the crime, are set forth in Articles 70(1) and 69(2).

In addition to the fact that it appears to be seen, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, such as the age and criminal punishment.