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

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 18:00 on December 16, 2013, the Defendant used cash withdrawal and withdrawal in Han Bank 365 Cop, Ltd. (the age of 30 years), one bank, 141, and assaulted the victim C (the age of 30), who was using cash withdrawal and withdrawal in the 365 Cop, Ltd. (the age of 30) by taking a bath, such as “at home, we have to see the tasks here, we have to live in North Korea, and his parents have to see it, and his parents have also come to see it.”

2. In such a case as referred to in paragraph (1) of the damage to property, a property was damaged to cover approximately KRW 120,000 for repair costs by unagal lupt mobile phones located on the floor by cutting a bank owned by a victim, which was laid adjacent to a cash withdrawal machine, at the same time and place as referred to in paragraph (1) of the damage to property, and was laid down on the floor;

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Application of each Act and subordinate statute to voice files and photographs;

1. Relevant Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 366 of the Criminal Act; and selection of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The Defendant denies all of the crimes against the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the victim C consistently testified from the investigative agency to this court that he suffered damage, such as the facts charged, and even when the developments leading up to the dispatch at the time of the instant case, I bank stated that the CCTV screen was viewed from the CCTV screen and confirmed the location where the Defendant assaulted the victim as in the facts charged, and that the Defendant was faced with the victim’s defense. Thus, there is no lack to find the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged based on the above evidence.

The reason for sentencing seems to not only have committed the crime of this case even though the defendant had a criminal record of the same kind, but also have no conviction by denying the crime.

In addition, for the recovery of damage.