Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is agricultural, and the neighbor is living in the same village as the victim C(M, 77 years old).

On March 11, 2017, at around 12:50, the Defendant: (a) committed an assault against the said victim, on the road at the entrance of “E” located in Gyeonggi-si D; (b) on the ground that the husband’s husband and the wind have broken, the Defendant expressed that the victim “E” was “hyp of the same day flab, flab, flab, flab, flab, flab, etc.; and (c) flabing the flab, flab, etc., flabing the flab, flab, etc., of the victim’s flab, who was at the end, expressed that the victim’s flab was “h flab flab

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A written statement of the preparation of C, F, a statement made by police with C, and F, a photograph of the injured party and a criminal investigation report (or a relative telephone investigation under this Chapter);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

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

1. Determination as to the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (as to the assault against the victim F), the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant committed an act, such as the defendant's wheels to sell the victim F as stated in this part of the facts charged, but the victim F made the above act in order to escape from the defendant's arms, and that the defendant did not have the intent to commit the assault, and that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act.

In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by this Court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court: ① the Defendant, at the time, seems to have expressed a bath to the effect that the Defendant had her husband and the mother of the Victim F, stolen the goods and stolen the goods; ② C was an assault, such as having flapibed C’s flapi, etc.; ② C was in opposition to this.