Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On November 24, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 11:00, the victim E (67 years), the former president of the D clan, the Defendant was affiliated with, and (b) assaulted with, the victim as “a person who received road compensation and embezzled the road by taking advantage of his / her her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s Fund

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, G, and H;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel had been in Seoul as of the date and time stated in the facts constituting the crime, but did not have been located at that time, and that there was no assault as stated in the judgment of the victim

(1) However, there is credibility in the statement because the victim, witness E, F, and G have consistently and specifically stated the facts and circumstances of the damage, the degree of damage, etc. in the instant case, and ② the Defendant himself/herself committed a conflict with the victim at the time of investigation by the police at the time of investigation by the police.

According to the fact that there is no objective evidence to prove that there was a place other than the place on the date stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant, the fact that the defendant used the victim as stated in the judgment can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant and the defense counsel are not accepted.