Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 400,000.

If the defendant fails to pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be converted into one day.

Punishment of the crime

C is a person operating the restaurant "E" by leasing a building owned by Defendant A in 1,00, and Defendant A is a lessor of the above restaurant building.

On June 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 13:20 on June 20, 2015, in relation to the Defendant’s appearance of the victim C (at the age of 50) to the lower part of the said restaurant building in order to prevent the Defendant from dumping waste; (b) in relation to the Defendant’s bodily dispute with the victim, the Defendant: (c) caused the victim’s bodily injury to the victim; and (d) caused the victim to inflict the victim’s bodily injury, such as the salt, tension, etc. in the part of the said cafeteria part of the said cafeteria building, which was necessary for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of the Defendant’s partial legal statement C, F’s legal statement C, F’s police statement investigation report (ex officio investigation, hearing of related person’s telephone statement), injury diagnosis report, Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion

1. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant, first of all, spreaded his hand in order to get out of the bridge.

2. According to the above evidence adopted and examined by this court, it is recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime.

In particular, G (H operation on the 1st floor of the victim’s restaurant) located in a neutral position was carried by the victim so that the defendant keeped his hand, and women knife their arms while going beyond next to it, and the defendant and the victim knife and pushed down their booms.

A statement was made to an investigative agency.

According to this G’s statement, the Defendant and the victim appear to have flicked, pushed and spathed each other, on the ground that the witness testimony in the court is in conflict with the victim C’s friendship, F and the victim’s statement, the Defendant reported first in 112, and that at that time, the Defendant and the Defendant were not aware of the personal information about the male who expressed a bath together with the victim at that time.