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

Where the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

At around 22:20 on May 26, 2014, the Defendant, at the “E” restaurant entrance operated by the victim D (Inn, 54 years old), who was in the public city of Gongju, caused the victim’s knife to attract the victim’s knife to the outside of the restaurant by avoiding the Defendant’s knife F couple, leading the victim’s knife to the knife and knife, leading the victim to the knife, thereby causing the victim’s knife that requires treatment for about 14 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Each statement made by the defendant, G, F, H, and H in the suspect's interrogation protocol on the defendant, G, H, and D

1. Written diagnosis of injury to D;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The grounds for conviction of Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order has no aspect of exaggerationing the content of a certain crime and the fact of damage.”

However, a relatively consistent statement concerning the instant criminal facts is consistent with the foregoing criminal facts, and each part of the statements made to G and F investigative agencies is consistent with the aforementioned criminal facts.

(G) In light of the content of the statement and the details of the statement made by the investigation agency with respect to the instant criminal facts, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have made a false statement in order to hold the Defendant accountable for the said criminal facts. Considering such circumstances and the date and time of treatment (see, e.g., May 27, 2014) confirmed by the injury diagnosis certificate of D, it is reasonable to determine the Defendant guilty of the instant criminal facts.

The fact that the defendant denies the reason for sentencing, and that the victim who suffered the injury wants criminal punishment against the defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, F, which is the foundation of the crime of this case, is the actual accomplice who suffered a higher mental pain to the victim, is not subject to any criminal punishment, and the defendant is the case.