Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the subject of the number gauge in which the victim C(59 years of age) wife D has joined.

At around 15:00 on May 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) reported the victim’s brine F located in Bupyeong-gun E E, Incheon; and (b) expressed the victim’s brine that “in the course of bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch, the male son interfered with, and see work,” and assaulted the victim’s face on twice the victim’s face.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of the respective laws and regulations of G and D

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. On March 19, 2015, at around 14:30 on March 19, 2015, the Defendant: (a) committed spitation and spitation on the part of the victim, i operated by the victim C (the age of 59) located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu; (b) on the ground that the victim, given the Defendant’s husband’s her her her her her her son with the fact that the Defendant was unable to recognize the Defendant’s her her her husband

2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that is beyond a reasonable doubt, to such a degree that the facts charged are true. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the degree that such conviction would lead to, the determination ought to be based on the defendant’s benefit even if there

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do15767, Feb. 13, 2014). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court are: ① The Defendant, from an investigative agency to an investigation agency on March 19, 2015, was not bad with the victim, and thus, is not spiting the victim.

“Alongly and consistently.”