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

The defendant is the victim C and the victim of sexual South Korea's post-ship.

At around 03:00-4:00 on August 30, 2012, the Defendant assaulted one-time part of the victim on the ground that the Defendant tolds F and the Defendant from Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, the Defendant’s residence, as a result of the card tag verification.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of part of the police statement protocol to C

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. Parts of the offense under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the provisional payment order;

1. Around 03:00-4:00 on August 30, 2012, the summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant tolds F and the Defendant to fight with a trial cost due to the issue of confirmation of card plaques in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, the Defendant’s residence. As a drinking, the Defendant used the victim’s body and face at several times due to the Defendant’s continuous outbreak of approximately five minutes, the victim took part in several times due to the victim’s body and face, and took part in several times due to the victim’s body’s assault, such as cages, bridges, and bals, etc., which require medical treatment for the next 35 days.

2. The fact that the victim suffered an injury requiring medical treatment for the next 35 days on August 30, 2012 is recognized, but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to view that the victim was sufficiently proven beyond a reasonable doubt as to the fact that the victim suffered an injury by assaulting the victim, such as taking the victim several times by the aforementioned method, and taking the victim several times, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

① The victim stated in the police that he was assaulted by the Defendant only once, but the statement was embodied in the court with the same content as the above facts charged.

No. 3.