Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 13, 2011, the Defendant: (a) around 01:20 on October 13, 201, the victim F (n, 54 years of age), an employee of the said business establishment, carried out the Defendant’s arms in front of the “Ekbook” operated by D in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) when entering the carpet, the Defendant carried out the Defendant’s arms; and (c) the victim was flabed, which led to the flabing of the victim, and the victim was over the ground floor, and the victim was flabed, and the flab, the flab, and the flab of the flab, which requires approximately four weeks of treatment to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Medical certificates, medical records, certificates of hospitalization and discharge, and other materials (F);

1. Sponsor photography photographs, mobile phone photographing photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the H telephone communications of the Director General of the G Hospital);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The victim guilty of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act states consistently that he/she has inflicted an injury on himself/herself as stated in its reasoning, and it is judged that the circumstances leading up to the statement are natural and specific, and that the credibility of the statement is high.

The degree of the instant injury ( difficult to deem that it was caused by the victim’s own go beyond) and D also raised the credibility of the victim’s statement on the day of the instant case, such as the contents requested by the victim (such as the police’s failure to report to the police, and the police’s failure to report to the hospital, but to turn off the hospital).

On the other hand, D and I asserted that they observed the instant case did not inflict any injury on the victim as stated in their reasoning. However, D’s statements are different from or inconsistent with the Defendant’s and the victim’s statements, and the Defendant, as a single-fab customer of the car page operated by himself, knew to his phone number, on the day of the instant case.