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

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

Punishment of the crime

"2013, 1345"

1. At around 03:30 on May 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) driven a taxi at the request of the victim C(31 years of age) and arrived at D’s seat in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si; (b) the victim was able to take a bath with the victim while taking a defect that he/she would return to his/her match.

The Defendant, who was seated in the driver’s seat, dumped from the victim, and dumped from the driver’s seat, and dumped the victim’s bomb, and dumped on twice as he dump, and dumped.

"2013, 1453"

2. On June 1, 2013, at around 04:55, the Defendant: (a) entered the taxi operated by the Defendant with the victim E as a passenger; (b) was requested from the victim to enter into the apartment site in front of 130 F apartment 130, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si; (c) the Defendant refused to do so; and (d) the Defendant was assaulted by the victim; (b) the Defendant duplicateded the ves of the veget of the veget of the veget of the veget of the veget of the veget of the veget of the veget of the victim, and

Summary of Evidence

"2013, 1345"

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Damage photographs "2013, 1453";

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Attachment of a medical certificate and change of name of the crime);

1. Article 260 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act that applies to the relevant criminal facts and that of the choice of punishment: Selection of a fine;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant alleged that the act as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act was self-defense, but the defendant's assertion cannot be viewed as self-defense in light of the circumstance, method and consequence of the act, intent of the defendant, etc. indicated in the record. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.