Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 11:50 on August 3, 2017, the Defendant, as an employee at the construction site of the building site of the Daedong-dong Seoul apartment, assaulted the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) on the following grounds: (b) on the ground that the victim D(43) of the private victim D (43) said D during telephone conversations related to the work site of the above construction site, “Is to go back to the future, I would have to go to you would go to you?” (c) around 12:20 on the same day, I would like to assault the Defendant about 10 faces face of the victim who was seated in the above construction site, and continued to go to go to seven times on the bridge of the victim, who continued to go to go to the floor, and would inflict an injury on the victim, who would need to receive treatment for 35 days between 35 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accusation report and investigation result report;

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. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, despite the assertion that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the condition of mental or physical weakness or loss of mind and body due to mental illness at the time of committing the instant crime, the evidence revealed in the record of the instant case does not appear to have lost the Defendant’s ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime, or to have lost its ability to discern things.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

Although it is more favorable to the fact that there is no prior conviction of a fine for the reason of sentencing and the fact that the person suffers from the stimulative disorder is suffering from the stimulative disorder, it is more severe than a fine for the summary order because the degree of violence and injury is not repaid.

It does not seem that it does not appear.