When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. Around February 27, 2018, the Defendant: (a) committed sexual assault and assault in C Lestop VIP heading room in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon; (b) Hastop VIP heading room in C, the victim D (45 tax) who is a doctor of the latter service; and (c) sexual assaulting the Defendant for his 10 years prior to his 10-year period; (d) sexual assaulting the victim by having her son, who is a dangerous object on the table.

2. On February 27, 2018, at around 22:35, the Defendant destroyed special property by: (a) at the above Lestop, which was operated by the Victim E, and (b) at the above Lestop, as set forth in paragraph (1), the Defendant: (c) went away from the entrance door of the beer’s disease, which is a dangerous article on the tables; and (d) the Defendant damaged the glass of KRW 440,000 to cover repair costs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Application of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to each relevant photograph;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 261, 260 (1) (the occupation of a special assault and fine), 369 (1), and 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense; the choice of a fine);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment was committed by the Defendant on the grounds that the victim talks with the victim D, who is a succeeding doctor, that the victim did not come to his mind. The crime of this case was committed against the victim Byung who was dangerous object on the grounds that the victim talks with the victim D, who was a succeeding doctor, and the crime was committed against the victim again at the entrance of the beer's disease after the victim went to death, and there is

It is doubtful whether the victim D is punished by the defendant, and it seems that the defendant did not make any effort to recover the damage, including the serious apology against the victim, and whether the defendant is against the truth in light of the attitude of the investigation agency and this court.