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 is the manager of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C or building, and the victim D (the remaining, 67 years old) is the manager of the above building.

On August 18, 2016, at around 11:00, the Defendant was in a management room located in the first floor parking lot of the building No. A, and there was a dispute between the victim and the water measuring instrument installation, and the victim was pushed down with the wall and the right blusium, and the victim was injured on the left-hand side of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness D’s legal statement (i.e., the Defendant’s lubow part of the victim’s entry with his/her lubow part) has been protruding outside of the two as soon as possible.

E in the outside of the management office, the defendant was unable to witness the victim's entrance part due to his arms.

“A statement to the effect that the statement was made”

1. Investigation report (referring to E phone call) (the part to the effect that E is omitted in the victim's entry outside of the control room and that the victim's entry price is even scam);

1. Investigation report (F dental clinic telephone conversations of the victim) (the part to the effect that the cover is found to have been broken by any shock, and that the cover is not broken by any shock, even if it is charged with the storm of the victim);

1. A statement of inquiry into facts (the part to the effect that the victim does not have details of the use of the dental hospital from February 18, 2016 to August 18, 2016)

1. Application of a medical certificate of injury, photographs of the management office, and statutes governing damaged photographs;

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not reflect his/her mistake, and does not make any effort to recover damage to the victim, the amount of fine prescribed in the summary order of this case is excessive.

subsection (b) of this section.