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

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 10, 2016, the Defendant collected stone, which is a dangerous object in the front of the Gyeongwon-gu, 16-1 (Reshot-dong, Simpo-dong, Simpo-dong, Simpo-si, Simpo-si, Simpo-si, Simpo-si, Simpo-si, Simpo-si, Simpo-si.

“..............” assaulted the victim C(66)’s head.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on photographs (damages, on-sites), black stuffs images to photographs, black stuffs image images, and the statute on CDs;

1. Relevant Article 261 of the Criminal Act, Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include a number of criminal records of the same kind, confession, depth, and the decision of fine is made in consideration of the fact that the victim and the victim agreed smoothly.

In this context, the defendant's age, sex, family environment, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime are considered, and the punishment is determined as ordered.

Parts of innocence

1. On May 10, 2016, the Defendant: (a) 01:10 on the roads 16-1 (No. 66-1) of the Yanju-si, Yanju-si, the Defendant: (b) on the 3rd-ro, Yan-si, Yan-si; (c) however, on the ground that the said victim was on board a cab passenger operated by the victim C (66 years of age); (d) on the ground that the said victim was on the funch, the Defendant took a bath for the victim’s funch, “I am off from the same funch, I am, I am off from the fune,” and (d) caused the injury of the victim from the funch-si in the funch-si, which caused the victim’s bomb, twice in which the number of days for treatment cannot be known

2. The purport of the judgment is that there is a medical certificate for the preparation of doctor E in the evidence that seems to correspond to this part of the facts charged, and the content of the medical certificate is that “it is necessary to establish a framework because the central government of the values of bad faith has broken off.”

Since it cannot be seen as a body as a medical assistive device that can be found to have been attached to it, the victim is only a person who suffers damage.