Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 6, 2015, around 12:00, the Defendant: (a) made a mistake in the boundary of the fenced fence against the victim D (the 79-year old-old) who is a neighboring party in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul; (b) demanded a new stockpiling of the fence; and (c) caused the victim by assaulting, such as the victim’s shoulder and spath, and spathing and spathing, etc., and caused the victim to suffer from the 3rd cup of the 28-day cupage that requires medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and D;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

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

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 262, 260, and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Although the defendant was able to wear clothes on the part of the victim's neck, there is no fact that the shoulder and flaps were snicked as stated in the facts charged.

B. Even if an assault, such as the statement in the facts charged, is recognized, since the Defendant could not have predicted that the injury, such as the statement in the facts charged, was caused to the victim due to his own assault, the liability for the crime of causing bodily injury by assault cannot be imposed.

2. Determination

A. The victim’s statement to the effect that the existence of assault, such as the facts charged, was recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, that: (i) the Defendant was scam and scamed in the victim’s scam, and was scamed, but was scamd in the corresponding part; and (ii) the Defendant was scamd and scamed, but the symptoms were not scamd, and that the Defendant was aware of the fact that scam was found to be scam at the hospital after the hospital was diagnosed, is mutually consistent and concrete in its main part (this Court is within the victim’s own jurisdiction).