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

The defendant is engaged in interior fishery, and the victim C(the age of 37) is a person engaged in construction pipeline-related business, and these are currently pending litigation due to construction cost costs.

At around 12:00 on March 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) had finished a trial in front of the first new district court No. 364, which was 364 U.S. 12:0, and requested the victim C to have a conversation; (b) but the victim neglected and attempted to do so; (c) caused the victim to be able to debris, with the victim’s erogate, erogate, hump, hump, and other losses; and (d) caused the victim’s injury in need of approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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 claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are merely one time, so it is difficult to view that the victim was injured. In fact, even if such an increase was inflicted on the victim, it is not caused by the act of the defendant, but it is obvious that it is the victim's symptoms caused by spatition, and thus, it cannot be punished for the crime of injury.

On the other hand, the written diagnosis submitted by the victim of the crime of injury is not sufficient as evidence to directly prove the fact that the injury as stated in the written diagnosis is caused by the criminal act of the defendant, but the date and time of the diagnosis is close to the time when the injury occurred.