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

At around 02:00 on November 5, 201, the Defendant: (a) boarded a taxi driven by the victim D (38 years of age) in front of the Goak-gu Seoul apartment site located in Cheongju-si, Chungcheongnam-gu; (b) however, on the ground that the victim with a defect of hearing impairment was well aware of the difficulty of hearing and driving the taxi through the Sung-dong room, the Defendant was a trial expense, and the Defendant saw the victim’s flab, and fladding the flab, and flading the flab, etc. of the victim at his hand, and flading the flab, etc. at the left-hand side, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement made by the police on D;

1. Description of the written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of video-related Acts and subordinate statutes to images of the victim’s body photographs;

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

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 the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted that the Defendant and his defense counsel were not guilty on the ground that the victim was not guilty on the ground that he merely fatd the victim’s fat, and fatd the fat, in the process of removing the fat, by cutting

On the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by this court, and ① The injury diagnosis report submitted by the victim of the injury generally after the doctor grasps the cause of the injury on the basis of the victim’s statement, and enters the part and degree of the injury observed and judged by using medical professional knowledge, and it is insufficient to directly prove the fact that the injury was caused by the criminal act of the defendant. However, although the date and time of the diagnosis of the injury are close to the time and time when the injury occurred, there is no special circumstance to suspect the credibility in the process of issuing the injury diagnosis report, and the part and degree of the injury are claimed by the victim.