A shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.
If A does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Punishment of the crime
On September 24, 2014, from around 22:10 to around 22:20, at the entrance of Daejeon Seosung-gu F, 212 Dong 902, Defendant A, who had resided under subparagraph 802, called the above apartment guard room and reported that noise from the above floor level 902, the noise from the above floor level, 902, was the problem between the victim B and the city, and the victim's face was 2 to 3 times, and the victim's face was 2 to 21 days.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant A’s legal statement
1. Legal statement of witness G;
1. A protocol concerning the suspect B of the police;
1. A and B photographs;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;
1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;
1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. On September 24, 2014, from around 22:10 to around 22:20 on September 24, 2014, the summary of the non-guilty part of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant B), the Defendant: (a) from around 22:20 to around 22:20, the entrance door of Daejeon Pung-gu F, 212 Dong 902; (b) the victim, who resided in the same subparagraph 802, called the above apartment guard room, called the victim to the above apartment guard room; (c) the victim, who called the victim’s left part of the victim’s day, was exposed to the noise between the floors on which the victim reported that the noise in subparagraph 902 of the above 802, the victim, who was the above floor, was fluding the victim’s vision with his hands, and caused the victim’s injury, such as salt, dump, tension, etc., requiring treatment for approximately 21 day.
In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in the criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that leads the judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 190, Nov. 11, 2010