The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On November 10, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, etc. in the subsidization of capital gains by means of the Suwon method, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 23, 2015.

A. A. A special assault: (a) around September 30, 2014, the Defendant was driving a hurbed vehicle at the front of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul) on the front of the road; (b) was driving the hurbed vehicle on the part of the Defendant on the ground that it obstructed the course of the Defendant, and the Defendant was driving the hurb by driving the hurbed vehicle on the ground that it obstructed the course of the victim D (n, 38 years of age) and the Defendant was driving the hurbed by the mother, which is a dangerous object in the Defendant’s vehicle, and launched 10

The Defendant continued to approach the victim's driver's seat to the driver's seat, followed by the Defendant's chief window on the Defendant's vehicle, and then launched the victim's driver's seat to the victim's seat, and then emitted the victim's bomb again.

As a result, the Defendant committed violence to the victim with the shot gun of the mother, which is a dangerous object.

B. The Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) driving a vehicle without obtaining a driver’s license, on the date and place specified in paragraph 1, and at the same time and place.

2. Among the evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor, there is evidence showing that the Defendant was shot in the arms of the mother while driving the vehicle as shown in the facts charged, there is a statement of D concerning D by the prosecution and the police protocol, F by the police protocol concerning F by the police interrogation protocol, F by the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant, and a statement of D by the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant.

D The Defendant and G’s resident registration certificate at an investigative agency stated that the Defendant and G were sitting on the top of the next vehicle is not the Defendant and, in fact, specified the Defendant as the offender. However, on the other hand, the Defendant and G’s photograph stored in the Defendant’s page at an investigative agency were identified as the offender, and the G was also identified.