Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant is a person operating the “C” in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon, and the victim D (n, 49 years of age) who purchased visibility at the above store.
At around 20:50 on October 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) boarded the vehicle at one’s own E- which is a dangerous object that had been parked at the front of the vehicle, and (b) driven the vehicle at the start of the vehicle as it is, despite the fact that the damaged person was blocking the front of the vehicle, and (c) driven the vehicle at the end of the vehicle on several occasions in a manner that the damaged person stopped the vehicle even though he was demanded to stop at the right door on the center of the vehicle, even though he was demanded to stop the vehicle at the right door on the center of the vehicle, he stopped the vehicle over several occasions.
Accordingly, the defendant, carrying dangerous goods, and assaulted the victim.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Legal statement of the witness D;
1. Some statements concerning the police and the suspect examination protocol of the prosecution against the accused;
1. A report on dispatch to a scene of violence;
1. Three copies of a record of internal investigation report (F telephone call for a witness), internal investigation report (to search for the existence of CCTV around the scene and to specify the place of crime), internal investigation report (to make a witness F telephone conversations, twice), internal investigation report (to make a witness G telephone conversations), recording report (to make a witness G telephone), recording report-to-report on the investigation of two telephone conversations, other than F. of a witness [the defendant and the defense counsel did not have an intention to assault the defendant with a dangerous object of the assault;
The argument is asserted.
In light of the statements of witnesses at the time, the victim's statement in this court, and the vehicle driving distance, etc., it seems that at the time the speed of the defendant's vehicle appears to have been the degree of walking, and that the victim did not have the opportunity to get out of the main body, and that the victim had the intention to resist the defendant in relation to visual repairs.
However, this Court is legitimate.