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

The defendant married on October 28, 2013 with the victim FF, but is currently in a divorce lawsuit.

1. The Defendant, on December 22, 2013, committed assault and assault, around 20:0 Sejong G, 308 Dong 704, and her husband’s F&C dispute with the victim F, the husband, had his body fighting between themselves.

During that process, the Defendant assaulted the victim by putting the victim’s flaps and arms.

2. The Defendant causing property damage, at the time and place as referred to in paragraph (1), recorded the victim’s fault with a smartphone so that it can be judged by others, and recorded it with a smartphone, thereby damaging the repair cost to the extent equivalent to KRW 173,000, on the ground that the Defendant was trying to make a sound recording and recording of the victim’s smartphone owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and H;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Report of investigation (investigative records, No. 54 pages);

1. A card receipt (the number of pages 205 of investigation records);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of photograph (influence No. 192 of investigation record);

1. Relevant Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 366 of the Criminal Act; and selection of fines;

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

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant does not have any violence against the victim, nor did he/she damage a smartphone owned by the victim.

2. In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, the defendant can sufficiently prove the fact that the defendant assaulted the victim as above and damaged the smartphone owned by the victim. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

(1) The victim initially received 112 reports and stated that the police officer, who was dispatched, stated that the defendant carried Handphones, boomed, pushed down, and assaulted him, and consistently with the investigation agency and this court.