Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On December 5, 2015, at around 22:40 on December 5, 2015, the Defendant sent the Victim F (59 years of age) to Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the reason that the Victim F (59 years of age) is the Defendant who has a dispute with G, and that he said the Defendant “hick fighting”.

“In doing so, the victim was pushed the victim by being pushed off with the victim, and the victim was faced with the customer, and the victim was suffered from the injury, such as the mouth and closure of the two parts above L2 in the number of days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate, written opinion, medical advice, investigation report, record record;

1. Article 262 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 262 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for the crime, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning the confinement of a workhouse [the defendant and his/her defense counsel did not have any hostile assaulted by the defendant and his/her defense counsel, and there was no intentional assault by the defendant;

The argument is asserted.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case, namely, ① the victim voluntarily disclosed the contents of the claim for insurance money at the time of filing a complaint against the defendant, and the victim stated the circumstances of this case. As above, the content of which the victim stated at the risk of criminal punishment is high credibility.

(2) Although H appears to have no reason to make a statement favorable to the victim due to the termination of de facto marital relationship with the victim, the investigative agency and this court consistently maintained that the defendant was faced with the victim with the tables.

(3) The testimony of the J and G not only stated in this court but also different statements about the progress of this case, and the content of the testimony of the J differs from that of the investigative agency, and there is a doubt about credibility thereof. ④ On the other hand, if the victim at the end of the defendant was above the victim, the cause can not be found separately except for the exercise of the accused’s tangible power.