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

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 17:10 on December 3, 2013, the Defendant sent signals to the victim E (the age of 62) who was temporarily stopped in the front direction of the cargo vehicle driving by himself/herself, but did not have any reaction and did not take any response, and the Defendant was able to take the bath first.

Accordingly, the Defendant carried the parts of the victim's neck from the vehicle on his hand on his hand, dump and dump, and applied approximately three weeks of treatment to the victim on his flaps and heat in the mouth.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the investigation report (Attachment of a photograph), photograph, investigation report (Attachment of a medical certificate);

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

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the costs of lawsuit against the defendant and his defense counsel under the main text of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 191 (1) of the same Act claim that, first of all, the defendant threatened the defendant and the defendant constitutes self-defense because they spread their hands out to the direction of E and block them for the purpose of defending the defendant. However, according to the defendant's statement in investigation agency and court, the defendant came from the scene of the traffic between E and the vehicle, and went from the vehicle first to the vehicle of E, and went back from the vehicle of E, and the defendant went from the vehicle of E. In this case, it is recognized that the defendant first fell from the vehicle of E, and the defendant was only aware of the fact that he pushed the E, and then, the defendant did not actively defend the victim, and therefore, the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel is without merit.