Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who acts as an acting engineer.

On June 18, 2017, at around 10:00 on June 18, 2017, the victim C (ma, 76-years) and demonstration participants attended the assembly related to B-house project and were in a procession with the moving line after departing from the Gininn Park, a senior citizen reported.

On August 10, 2017, around 10:40 on August 18, 2016, the victim was in the presence of the Estore of Songpa-gu Seoul building.

The Defendant committed assault, without any reason, against the victim participating on the rooftop of the Defendant’s residence (Seoul Songpa-gu D) by throwing garbage to the victim participating on the victim’s head from the victim’s head, embling, embling, bridge, bridge, hand, hand, boom, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and F;

1. Results of on-site inspections conducted by this court;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigative report;

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the Attraction of the Nom Station: (a) the Defendant and his defense counsel claimed that even though the Defendant raised poppy, he did not administered garbage, the possibility that the Defendant would have been discharged from the parking lot of the adjacent Dogra and the H building located adjacent to the Dogra, and that she would have a possibility that she would have diminished the new garbage. The following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case: (a) examining the trace of the taken garbage at the time of this case, the garbage was distributed in the front of the building in which the Defendant is living, and the said garbage was not distributed de facto (the investigation record 13 pages, and ② as a result of on-site verification, the Defendant conducted an experiment that spread the garbage from the rooftop of the building in which the Defendant actually resides.