Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On January 29, 2013, at around 19:30 on January 29, 2013, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol together with the company fees at E-cafeteria operated by the victim D (Inn, 53 years of age) in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was the victim's head, and was faced with the victim's head, leading the victim to approximately three weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness D’s statement of damage from the witness D’s legal statement is considerably consistent and very clear from the investigative agency to this court, and its credibility is recognized in light of the following circumstances, investigation circumstances, and attitude of the witness D’s statement in this court.

Defendant

In addition, although the defense counsel asserts that D makes a false statement to gather the defendant, it does not seem that D has any special motive or reason to gather the defendant in light of the existing single-spel relationship between D and the defendant's side or human relations.

On the other hand, each legal statement of G and H, the witness of the defendant, is insufficient to impeachment D's damage statement.

1. Although the witness F’s testimony in part does not completely coincide with D’s damage statement, the part of the inconsistency with F’s testimony is related to the main issue and is not contrary to D’s damage statement or inconsistency with D’s damage statement, and even if the witness did not witness a part of the situation or witness, it seems that F did not correctly memory all of its detailed parts even if he did not witness or witness.

1. Two copies of on-site photographs, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the trace of scatterings at the scene, such as a shouldered Sowing Sicks, does not coincide with D’s statement of damage. However, even if examining the records, such as reference materials, submitted by the Defendant’s side, there is no particular question or contradiction between the above two.

In other words, as the defendant asserts that the trace, such as the scattering of the site of this case, is the result of the defendant.