Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

If the defendant does not pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant is running a lending company “E” in D at the time of influence, on December 5, 2013, on the ground that the victim F in front of the department store store Scambol-dong, Scambol-dong, Seoul, would be avoided without paying his/her debt, and that the Defendant would not change the four phone numbers to the victim.

In this sense, the author expressed that he would not perform funeral services by filing a civil petition for viewing if he did not repay the money, and assaulted the victim's flaps with flaps and flaps.

2. On March 19, 2015, the Defendant was unable to pay the Victim F with the Victim F’s liabilities instead of the Victim F, at the “E” office located in W in W in W in W-si on March 19, 2015.

In addition, the head of the office did not leave the breath, and the victim's breath was damaged and sprinked in a part of the breath which requires approximately two weeks of treatment by sprinking the breath in hand.

Summary of Evidence

Defendant’s partial statement H and I’s statement 112 of the witness F’s statement in the second trial report No. 112 of the witness F’s statement in the Defendant’s second trial report (the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant and the defense counsel did not assault or inflict an injury on the victim, and that the F and P and P and each type I’s statement in the victim F and F are not reliable.

As to the assault No. 1 of the ruling, F consistently states the situation at the time, and F did not immediately report to the police at that time, on the basis of the relationship between the defendant and F, the circumstances surrounding the defendant's finding F, etc.

The F's statement cannot be deemed to be reliable.

I and Hdo Defendant fat Father’s fat

statement.

H and I are the relatives of F’s family and the contents of the statement are inconsistent with each other, but it does not seem to be enough to reject the credibility of the statement (I stated that the Defendant made a f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’

statement.

However, H and I.