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

The defendant is the chairperson of the Do small group D, Dong-dong, South-dong, and the victim E is the neighbor of the defendant as a member of the same small group, and the victim F is the victim E's relationship.

1. On January 13, 2017, the Defendant assaulted the victim E (54 tax) of the victim E (54) located in Hanam-dong G, Hanam-dong, Hanam-dong, G, due to the use of a drilling package at a small-scale joint workplace, and assaulted the victim against the victim, and when the victim’s face part and the breast part are drinking.

2. In the above time and place, the injured Defendant: (a) prevented the Defendant at the victim F (43 taxes) with E; and (b) took breath’s breath and breath’s face; and (c) boomed the Victim’s face and breath’s body part, the injured Defendant dumpeded the Victim with a high breath’s external external wall that requires approximately three weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. F, E respective photographs, and F bamboo saves and diskettes photographs;

1. Application of statutes of the F of each medical certificate;

1. Relevant Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the said Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment imposed on the heavier judgment];

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

1. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is the defect that the victims want to be aground and to put a dog on the part of the defendant, and the body was fighting against this, and thus, the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense as provided by Article 20 of the Criminal Act. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court, the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense as provided by Article 20 of the Criminal Act. However, the defendant's above assertion by the defendant is rejected since E is recognized as aground after the defendant inflicted violence or bodily injury on E