Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On July 25, 2017, around 00:45, the Defendant did not confirm the victim E, who was in front of the victim's face, with a view to parking of 304 floors of "D's multi-households in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building". On July 25, 2017, around 304, the third floor of "D's multi-households in Seocho-gu, Seoul, with a view to parking problems, and without checking the victim E, who was in front of the victim's face face facing the door, caused the victim to suffer from the inside and outside side of the medical treatment days

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Photographss of each damage, the details of telephone conversations to be taken;

1. Recording (the defendant and his defense counsel argued that the defendant had opened a door or that the victim did not face the door, so this part of the defendant and his defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion is without merit, and according to each evidence duly adopted by this court and examined evidence, the defendant's door was opened and the fact that the victim was faced with the door was recognized. Thus, this part of the evidence is without merit.)

[Defense Counsel] That the victim of domestic affairs was the victim of the defendant's leisure

Even if the defendant asserts that he does not have a duty of care to confirm whether he has a person in front of the door, so the defendant and the victim reside in the same multi-household house, i.e., the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., the defendant and the victim are living in the same multi-household house. Since the above multi-household house is not good, 6 vehicles are parked in double parking, the defendant parked in the vehicle with the inside space at the next day. When the victim arrives in the same multi-household house and the defendant is self-employed, the victim entered the new wall to the effect that the vehicle will be deducted from the defendant when the defendant is self-employed, the defendant and the victim parked the vehicle as a parking problem, and the victim who was lowered up to the first floor cannot be deducted from the vehicle.