On June 24, 2017, around 21:30, the Defendant inflicted injury on the face of the victim, chest, side glass, etc. on the part of the victim E (51) who lent money from the victim E (51) who was late late to Busan, and instead he did not pay the money before the victim E (51). On the other hand, the Defendant got off the face of the victim who got out of the country, such as the victim's face, chest, side glass, etc., where it is difficult for the victim to know the number of days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Complaint;

1. A detailed statement of the processing of reported cases;

1. An investigation report (including a certificate of 6, additional medical certificate, and a copy of medical records, once a year);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the investigative report (including a net time 13, photographic);

1. The relevant law on criminal facts, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act on the selection of punishment, the grounds for sentencing of imprisonment [the scope of recommended punishment] General In the basic area (from April to January) (the term "special person subject to sentencing] of the first type (the scope of recommended punishment] [the decision of sentencing] [the defendant has committed the instant crime in which the injury method and degree are not easy even though the criminal records of the same kind are several times, in light of the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime in which the injury occurred again even though the criminal records of the same kind of crime are various times, it seems not to refrain from self-regulation. The result of the instant crime in this case does not practically take advantage of the fact that the defendant did not properly obtain an agreement from a person who was unable to grasp the damage caused by the injury, and the victim does not endeavor to compensate for damage, and in light of the fact that the victim seeks a strict punishment against the above attitude of the defendant, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant even if it is considered that the following reasons for sentencing is less favorable to the defendant.

The fact that the defendant paid 3 million won to the victim immediately after the instant case, and deposited 1.5 million won after the closure of pleadings, and that the defendant seems to have an attitude to recognize and reflect the facts of the crime is favorable.

(2).