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

On February 23, 2015, the Defendant notified the Defendant that one of the four security guards, including the Defendant and the victim E (54 years old), should work for the victim at a higher level than the previous one due to the Plaintiff’s failure in the security service. On February 23, 2015, the Defendant was also aware of the victim’s epication, epicing the Defendant’s epib, and epicing the Defendant’s epib, and epicing the Defendant’s epic.g., e., e., e., e., e., the victim’s face.

Accordingly, the defendant set up an open room for the victim, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the statutes governing the statement of witness E in the third public trial protocol;

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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 on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is asserted as constituting legitimate defense since the victim committed an assault on the part of the defendant, and in the course of the defendant's abduction to escape the defendant, the victim's injury was inflicted on the victim in the course of pushing the victim

According to the above evidence, it is recognized that the defendant received the face of the victim by head while playing flaps with the victim and fighting with his body, which constitutes a separate attack rather than a minimum defensive act, and thus cannot be seen as a legitimate defense.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant suffered an injury that requires more severe treatment for four weeks in the course of dispute with the victim, the victim cancels the complaint against the defendant, and the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 150,000 won due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act around 1985.