Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On May 8, 2013, at around 23:00, the Defendant: (a) under the influence of alcohol, found the victim D (the age of 55) while under the influence of alcohol at the corridor; and (b) “I do not pay the commercial building management expenses” from the victim; (c) in India outside the commercial building, the Defendant assaulted the victim by saying “I see the victim during the one-day wave of the one-way and the two-day one-day one-day one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Investigation report (receiving written opinions and hearing opinions from a doctor);

1. Application of Written Opinions (D) legislation

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the same Act concerning the crime; the choice of fines;

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

1. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The main defense counsel of the assertion asserts that the defendant merely went beyond the victim's body while fighting with the victim, and that the victim did not go beyond the victim's body while walking.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by this court in addition to the overall purport of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the victim visited the E-Sapatum department on May 9, 2013, which is the day following the date in which the dispute was settled, and undergo diagnosis of the spatum spatitis, etc., at the time, the medical records stated that “at the time” was stated, ② the victim did not apply for medical care benefits; ② the victim appears to have been injured by the Defendant; ③ the Defendant suggested the victim to undergo a diagnosis at the hospital together with the hospital, and the victim did not act if the victim did not assault the victim, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant abused the victim as stated in its reasoning. Therefore, the above argument is groundless.

The defendant has reasons for sentencing.