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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. In Seoul Dongdaemun-gu around 10:00 on April 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) the victim E (57) who is a construction business operator (57) was at the roof of the said D’s house due to the relationship between the mother and the tree in the end of the Defendant’s house, beyond D’s house, with a degree of risk of blocking the drainage outlet and getting far away from the bar of D’s house; (b) the Defendant’s injury was defective in the construction work; and (c) the Defendant tried to see the other’s house in the south of the D’s house.

In the case of the victim's face and head from the main floor of drinking and drinking, the victim suffered bodily injury such as the face of the victim and the face of the left-hand light and the left-hand light in need of approximately two weeks of treatment.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, and at the place specified in Paragraph 1, 1 frighting the frighting, frighting the frighting of the frighting of the frighting of the frighting of the frighting of the frighting of the frighting of the frighting of the frighting of the

"In this case, the victim's face was flabed by defective loss, such as flabing bat.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the written diagnosis of injury to E;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury), Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence), and the selection of each fine for the crime;

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

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged that the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not contravene the party’s defense or social rules and thus constitutes a legitimate act. However, in light of the circumstances and motive of the instant case acknowledged by the evidence presented above, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.