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

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 22:00 on September 8, 2013, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol in C Building 103 305, 305 at a lodging room, had a dispute with the victim D (the age of 54) and the drinking value before towing, and was able to commit assault against the victim, as the Defendant tried to do with the simpled fish.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A criminal investigation report (a business operator shall attach images taken by the victim D with his/her cell phone to a CD);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, which photographed down salted fish in a lodging place;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant has no record of crime other than that sentenced once to a fine for the same kind of crime in around 2005, and that the victim seems to have not experienced much fear of the defendant's above assault, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the overall circumstances.

Defendant

In addition, the defendant asserts that, although the salted salt was in the hands, the defendant did not have any fact that the victim tried to do so.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, (i) the victim’s statement is reliable as it is specific and consistent from the investigation stage to the present court, and (ii) the video recorded by the victim had talked to the effect that the Defendant scamed the victim and died after the Defendant affixed the victim, etc., it can be acknowledged that the Defendant scamed by the scambling scambling scam, and that the fact that the victim scamed the victim was scamed. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.