A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On June 8, 2016, at the 2nd floor office of Daejeon-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, the Defendant brought the victim D (the age of 81) who was not adequate for appraisal as a matter of having filed a complaint against himself/herself from the 2nd floor office of the Daejeon-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City (the age of 81) and set the above office entrance, and closed the entrance of the victim to prevent him/her from leaving his/her office at hand.

In such a case, since there is a concern for the damages of the victim in the course of closing the door, it is necessary to close the door in the early scam by examining it, and the defendant neglected to do so, and thereby the left hand of the victim's left hand is scambling between the door and door door so that the victim suffered approximately two weeks of the left hand in need of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Recording of witness D's statements in the second public trial records;

1. Some of the statements made by the police in relation to E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on diagnostic certificates and damaged photographs;

1. Relevant Article 266 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 266 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant does not have to open the door as stated in the facts charged of this case.

Victim injury is unrelated to the defendant.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim stated consistently to the effect that “the victim went to the office where the defendant was a defendant to meet the defendant” from the investigative agency to this court, “the defendant go to the office where the defendant was a defendant, and brought the defendant in, thereby refusing it, refusing it, and maintaining the door frame, while the defendant was going to go to close his own door,” and the content of the statement is relatively specific and detailed.