Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Punishment of the crime

On July 10, 2014, at the conference room of the first floor in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, around 18:15, the Defendant assaulted the victim E (the age of 47) who was the partner of the Defendant and the son of the her husband, on the ground that the victim E (the age of 47) who was the partner of the son and the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of the son.

Summary of Evidence

1. The recording of statements by witnesses E and G in the third protocol of trial;

1. The recording of statements by a witness H in the fourth trial record;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of the G’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment.

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the defendant and his defense counsel are not at the time of E, E and G have made a consistent statement in the investigative agency and court, each of the above two persons' statements is inconsistent, and E and G have a same interest in the operation of the above convalescent hospital, and thus they cannot trust their statements that correspond to the facts charged.

However, on July 14, 2014, when the investigative agency submitted a written complaint, E made a statement to the effect that “the defendant has made two times parts of E’s clothes,” and “E has complied with a clear order from the defendant,” in this court, it made a statement to the effect that “E cannot be deemed that the above statement is inconsistent with a statement made by the investigative agency,” and G made a statement to the effect that “E has carried out a secret order with the E’s investigative agency,” in the written statement submitted to the investigative agency, that “E has carried out a secret order with the defendant’s body and carried out a hand, etc.”, and G made a statement to the effect that “The defendant has gone through a full order or a part of E in blusium,” in this court, it cannot be readily concluded that G’s statement is inconsistent or inconsistent with E’s statement, and that the operation of the above convalescent hospital is not a special case.