A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 17, 2015, from around 05:40 to around 06:00 the same day, the Defendant: (a) expressed his/her intent to “E” restaurant operated by the victim D in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) expressed his/her employees, on the ground that he/she did not prepare for food to the extent desired by the Defendant; and (c) expressed his/her employees, “this domination, the same year, the two years, and the two years; h.”; and (d) expressed his/her house at the restaurant, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the place in the preceding paragraph, and at the time, at the time, at the time, at the victim’s scam, the head of the victim F (at the age of 54), scambling the eggs, plucked against the wall, plucked up the arms of the victim, and assaulted one time by plucking and plucking the female.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant's partial statement in the first trial record (the fact that a restaurant has taken an employee's desire to do so);

1. The witness F and G’s legal statement (the fact that the Defendant, by the witness’s testimony, was gathering a restaurant house together with the criminal facts, and the victim F’s head, faced with the wall, and can be recognized by plucking, plucking and plucking the victim’s arms.

Although the Defendant answers to the purport that all such facts are denied, it is difficult to view this part of the argument as denying criminal facts in a strict sense because plucking, plucking, and the fact that plucking up and plucking up the arms and bucking once is not memory, and according to the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendant, the fact that plucking, plucking, and plucking, following the F's arms is dead (50 pages of evidence record). Meanwhile, the Defendant and the witness H, who ducking in the manner of drinking in company with the Defendant, testified to the effect that he is different from the testimony of the two witnesses before

In other words, it was impossible to see that the defendant was assaulted.

was testified.

In addition, the witness H is arrested by the defendant in relation to the circumstances after the crime, and after the police, the defendant is arrested.