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

1. Around 22:00 on May 8, 2014, the Defendant committed assault, such as: (a) the Defendant was wraped with a son on the street in front of 8, Gangseo-gu Seoul Gangseo-gu, Gasan 20-ro, Gangseo-gu, Seoul; (b) when he was c (18 years old); (c) the victim D (16 years old) witnessing that the Defendant was at the time of C; and (d) when the victim D (16 years old), the victim’s face was boomed by drinking the victim’s face.

2. The Defendant damaged property damage, at the above date, at the above time and place, the victim C’s fighting with the victim’s fighting, such as the damage of booms and knife by fasting the victim’s fighting with the victim’s fighting.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of victims of C and D;

1. A photograph of the damaged stobane and the victim's photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation;

1. Article 260 (1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and the choice 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 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The gist of the charge of assaulting C among the facts charged in the instant case, which is dismissed pursuant to Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, is as follows: (a) the Defendant appeared at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) of the judgment; (b) the victim C was sponsed with the sponsor; and (c) the victim C sponsed the sponsor and sponsed the sponsor with the sponsor’s left side

This is a crime falling under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Code, which can be prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the victim under Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Code. According to the C's agreement in the trial records, the above victim can be recognized as the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant around July 11, 2014, which is the date the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, this part of the prosecution is dismissed under Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.