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

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On September 25, 2015, from around 16:33 to around 16:35 on the same day, the Defendant assaulted the victim on the following grounds: (a) at the center of the second floor of the D Care Center in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun; (b) at the victim E (n.e., 88 years of age) suffering from dementia, due to the victim’s right ear seated in the wheelchairs; (c) by cutting down the victim’s head car; and (d) by spreading the victim’s head car; and (e) by spreading the victim’s head.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G and H;

1. A complaint filed by I;

1. Recording notes;

1. Application of the statute of the case ruling

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the video files of CDs containing images reproduced on the second trial date (hereinafter “instant files”) are not admissible as evidence, and the witness F’s statement in the court and investigation agency is difficult to believe, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the Defendant as guilty.

2. In the case of documents, etc. copied as evidence contained in the judgment digital storage medium or printed out from the digital storage medium, the requirement of “identification and integrity” is required in order to admit the admissibility thereof, and the digital evidence cannot be admitted if it fails to meet such requirements.

The instant file (Evidence List 30) is a copy of the original file stored in CCTV devices by electronic means, and its admissibility is recognized only when the original file and the instant file are identical and irrelevant.

Witness

G not only did any sealing device have been installed for the original file stored in the CCTV system, but also did not seal each storage device in the course of duplication.