Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was divorced on November 17, 2014 in a marital relationship with the victim C (V, 31 years of age).

On April 17, 201, the Defendant revised part of the facts charged to the extent that it does not interfere with the Defendant’s exercise of the right to defense, based on evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case (No. 401).

On the ground that the mother's mother in the defendant's house had talked about the fact that the defendant's mother was unable to receive insurance money by cancelling the insurance contract, the victim's boomed the victim's boom, and the victim's boomed the victim's boom, so that the victim's boom was unable to know the treatment days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement protocol against C and E;

1. A certificate of medical treatment, photograph, and written opinion;

1. A criminal investigation report (including attached materials, and attached materials) [the defendant and his defense counsel claimed to the effect that the defendant did not inflict any injury upon the victim in bee, but the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, ① the victim was injured by the defendant's neck at the time of the instant case relatively consistent with the investigation agency.

The statement, 2. The victim-friendly E puts the victim into custody in an investigative agency. The victim-friendly E puts the victim into custody at the time of the instant case.

“The statement to the effect that “” is stated to the effect that the victim received each treatment from Hanwon on April 19, 201, which was after the formation of the instant case, as “satis and tensions of the bones of wood,” and from Hanwon on April 21, 201, as “satise two tensions,” and (4) the victim received treatment as “satis and tensions of satis,” from the members of the department in charge of pain outside the Hepary and anesthesia pain on September 9, 201, and stated to the State doctor to the effect that the symptoms arose after being treated as “satis, satis,” and (5) the victim received treatment with respect to the satis, before the occurrence of the instant case (Evidence No. 132 pages).