Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received a demand from the victim E (57 years old) who is the owner of the business to smoke outside, on the grounds that, around 23:15 on May 11, 2018, the Defendant smoking in D restaurant located in Seojin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and received a demand from the owner of the business to smoke outside.

(p) Influoration of the transplant.

“In doing so, the victim’s flaps were fated with flaps, and the victim’s back part was flabed twice by left hand, and the victim was injured by catum salt, etc., for which approximately two weeks of treatment is required.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Photographs, diagnostic reports, CCTV-fagic photographs, and a reply to fact-finding inquiries;

1. A criminal investigation report (Attachment toCCTV Images) and application of the CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes attached thereto;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

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

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

1. Although the main points of the assertion include the fact that the defendant twice parts of the back part of the victim, the victim suffered bodily injury due to the defendant's assault in light of the medical treatment details, etc.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Determination

A. The written injury diagnosis submitted by the victim of the crime of injury generally grasps the cause of the injury based on the victim's statement, stating the part and degree of the injury that the doctor mobilizedd and observed and decided medical expertise, and it is insufficient to be a direct proof of the fact that the injury as stated was caused by the criminal act of the defendant. However, the date and time of the diagnosis as to the injury is close to the time and time of the occurrence of the injury, and there is no special circumstance to suspect the credibility in the process of the issuance of the written injury diagnosis, and the part and degree of the injury alleged by the victim are consistent with the cause and circumstance of the injury.