1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 14, 2016, the Defendant: “D” operated by himself, which is located in the head of the Busan Jin-gu B World Commercial Building C, was the victim and the Si expenses due to the refund of visibility sold to the victim E (24 tax). The Defendant classified the victim’s breath by hand into the bridge, and assaulted the victim.

2. The Defendant’s insult at the above date, time and place, and among F, G, G’s mother-child, etc., the victim’s wife, and the employees of the Defendant, “a weather frings, frings. frings, frings, and frings the victim.”

The victim publicly insultingd the victim by referring to this, i.e., food h. N. N.).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

2. Legal statement of witness E;

3. Each police statement made to E and F.

4. Part of the police statement protocol with H;

5. A complaint;

6. Application of the police investigation reporting Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

(a) The point of assault: Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of a set-off penalty);

(b) The point of insult: Article 311 of the Criminal Act;

2. Aggravation of concurrent crimes as prescribed in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes within the extent that the sum of the upper limit of sentence for the offense of insult, which is heavier than the punishment, is added);

3. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are confined in a workhouse

1. The accused of the allegation does not have assault the victim.

2. Determination

A. The degree of the formation of a conviction in a criminal trial must be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and the rejection by causing a suspicion with no reasonable grounds to recognize probative value is not allowed as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation. The reasonable doubt here refers to any question and belief.