Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 8, 2013, at around 23:25, the Defendant expressed the victim E (year 51) in front of the D Kaking Kashing Kashing Center located in Gumi-si, Gumi-si, that the victim had damaged the entrance door of the restaurant run by the Defendant before the Defendant, and expressed the victim’s face and bath by hand on the ground that it was damaged by the opening of the entrance of the restaurant run by the Defendant before the Defendant, and carried the victim’s quihing with the face and bath, and breath of the victim.

As a result, the defendant tried to examine the victim's face and the number of days of treatment in the item.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (limited to attachment of photographs of the body part of the victim);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the choice of fines (including the circumstances surrounding the dispute of this case, the degree of

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

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 범죄사실 기재와 같이 피해자 E에게 욕설을 한 후 피해자의 멱살을 잡아 당겨 바닥에 넘어뜨려 피해자에게 약 8주간의 치료를 요하는 우측 무릎뼈의 골절상 등을 가하였다.

2. The judgment of the defendant asserts that the defendants franchising E, like the criminal facts, did not go beyond the floor, or that the E does not go beyond the floor. As such, each of the witness E, F, G's statutory statement, E, E, and F's statement of the police interrogation protocol of the second police officer's interrogation protocol against the defendant, E, investigation report (as to attachment of the victim's body photo) and 112 report statement of the case processing.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence and the defendant's legal statement, witness H, and I's each legal statement, namely, E, from the investigative agency to the investigation agency to the present court, is relatively consistent to say that the defendant was in excess of the flat floor by cutting down the flat. However, the first time is the same.