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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On January 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) failed to receive money from the victim C (the age of 52) who is a fluorous fluorous fluor in the Nam-gu Busan District Court parking lot located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; (b) promised to pay the money from the victim on behalf of the victim; and (c) made a loan certificate to return the loan on behalf of the victim; and (d) came to be mad with the victim and D during the course of running the trial after filing a lawsuit for the claim for the return of the loan; (b) caused the victim to pay the money to the victim; and (c) continued to remove the victim's left part by plucking it over the floor, which requires the victim to receive approximately three weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

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

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that the defendant and his/her defense counsel were only the victim voluntarily passed, and the defendant did not

However, the witness C and D’s each legal statement and the content of the statement in the investigative agency are consistent to the effect that “the defendant was fluoring the victim’s head, fluoring the victim’s head, and assaulted, and plucking up the victim’s left part after plucking it up on the floor.”

In addition, the public duty personnel E, who had observed the situation at the time, stated to the effect that, immediately after the case, at the time of the police investigation, “The Defendant saw the victim’s arms to be frighted and frighted.”

Although the above witness E stated in this court that “I did not see that the Defendant was broken down,” the police investigation was conducted to the effect that it was “I did not see whether the victim was broken down or the Defendant was broken down.”