Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 19, 2016, the Defendant omitted the part of the indictment without putting the front of C Apartment 102, 102,3.4, the Defendant’s river on March 4, 2016, and without putting the Defendant into a hacker. However, it is difficult to say that the Defendant and his defense counsel were in a state where the hacker’s land owned by the Defendant was not a hacker in light of the overall context of the facts charged. As the Defendant and his defense counsel are claiming under the preceding facts, there is no disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right of defense, the Defendant’s correction is made as above.

There was a few years ago.

When Gangwon-do goes along, the safety gear shall be taken, such as attaching a shoulderer, and shall be managed so as not to cause any danger and injury to the surrounding persons.

Nevertheless, E has been faced with 16 months after the birth of the mast, and only after the birth of the 16th anniversary of the mast, and E has been faced with the damage of the mastalian, and then, in the latter, the math of the mathalian who was within the floor of the mastal, went away from the center by taking the bridge of the mastalian while taking the bridge of the mathalian, and suffered from the injury of the math's head who was inside the floor against the floor of the mastal.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. A complaint, a medical certificate, and a medical certificate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes that contain CCTV images;

1. Article 266 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 266 (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. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The main point of the argument is that the mother of the injured party himself/herself is able to grow up with his/her strong will. As such, there is no causal relationship between the Defendant’s negligent act and the injury of the injured party.

2. According to the above evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant is owned by the defendant at the time of the occurrence of the instant case.