Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, at around 07:00 on December 5, 2016, brought a dispute with the victim and fenced before the victim D (Woo, 68 years of age) located in Massung Group C, both of which were over 07:00, and “drumd with cement”;

Whether or not they were not stockpiled with soil such as before the tugboat.

The term "the victim's chest part was tightly pushed the victim's chest, thereby making the victim go beyond the victim, thereby making the victim go home with her traw, traw, and booming part of the treatment days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (as at the second public trial date);

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. Partial statement of the witness D;

1. Part of the statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defense counsel's argument regarding the defense counsel's argument under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order asserts that the act of the defendant does not result in injury identical to that stated in the facts charged.

그러나 피고인이 밀친 후 피해자가 넘어졌다는 점에 관하여는 피고인과 피해자의 진술이 일치하고[ 피고인은 경찰에서 피해자가 주저앉아 엉덩방아를 찧었다고

The statement was also made (37-38 pages of investigation records). The victim was in excess of the victim's first time to receive medical treatment.

The explanatory records are found.

In addition, if the elderly victim was placed in the state of her hand with goods, the probability that her butt will be placed in the her part is considerably high, and the victim's doctor who treated the victim on the day of the occurrence of the case was diagnosed specifically in addition to the part of the shoulder where the victim complained of the main pain, including her but not limited to the part where her but not limited to the part.

The facts of injury, such as the facts charged, caused by the defendant's act, are sufficiently recognized.

The above assertion is not accepted.