beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 10,000 won shall be one day.
Reasons
Criminal facts
On September 7, 2020, the Defendant: (a) from the main point of the trade name “C” located in Daejeon Pungdong B on September 7, 2020; (b) on the ground that the victim E, an employee of the said main place, does not have the mind to accept the offer of customers; (c) on the ground that there are ten customers, such as D, the Defendant was not aware of “25 suicide”;
Does the initial customer response, so far as:
S. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L.
The term “Seman Bana and Embling year” means “Yeman Haak and Embling year to enter the country,” and the victim continues to read “Weman Yeman Yeman Yeman Yeman Yeman Yeman Yeman Yeman Yeman Yeng, Yeman Yeman Yeman Yeman Yeman, Yeman Yeman Yek,” and “Weman har feas,”
“The President???????
“Along with an adverse change in Alphaga, I am special;
The term “low-end physical sale is good, lush, lush, and the liquor tax,” thereby openly insulting the victim.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Statement made by the police for E;
1. Application of investigative reports ( telephone conversations of police officers in mobilization to the scene), investigation reports ( telephone conversations of witnesses D)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. The reason for sentencing of Article 311 of the Act on the Punishment of Criminal Crimes, Article 311 of the Act on the Selection of Punishment, Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 334(1) of the Act on the Criminal Procedure for the Provisional Payment Order, where the defendant’s age is very imminent and low, and the defendant appears to have suffered considerable mental pain, as well as the victim after the crime of this case, and his family members. Nevertheless, when the defendant knew that he paid money under the pretext of agreement to be exempted from criminal punishment after the crime of this case, he was indicted of summary indictment, the defendant again returned money that he gave a summary contact to the victim, and thus, is contrary to his mistake by deeming that he did not return money.
It is difficult to see, and victims and their families.