Defendant who has converted 100,000 won into one day when the above fine has not been paid;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

To order the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

On July 1, 2015, at around 25: Around 25, the Defendant assaulted the victim C (year 50) and his face and surrounding area on three consecutive occasions on the ground that he had a sudden dispute with respect to delayed payment of wages in front of the Daejeon Daejeon District Employment and Labor Office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against Defendant and C

1. C’s statement;

1. Suspect C damaged photographs;

[Defendant and defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not leave the victim's face face and the victim's face and the victim's face is only one hand to see the defendant's face, and that the victim's face is only a single victim's face and a single victim's face is excluded. This is a legitimate self-defense or a legitimate act.

However, in this Court, the victim "at the time of drinking faces", "at the time of appearance, the police was faced with the face two times, and the face was faced with. The victim's oral statement will be aware of whether the victim is a scam. The victim's oral statement was made within the scam and was faced with the victim's face, "at the time of drinking, the surrounding the scam and the face was scam one time, and the investigation agency made three times at the time of appearance. The defendant's oral face was 3 to 4 times, and the face was 3 to 4 times at the entrance. The victim's oral statement was breath and "at the time of appearance. There was a little difference in the detailed part of the above statement, but the victim's face was 3 times from the defendant, and some of the victim's face was scambling from the investigation agency on the day of the defendant's oral statement, and the victim's oral statement could be found consistent with the victim's face on the day of investigation.

In addition, in light of the background leading up to the dispute between the Defendant and C, and the method and degree of the assault committed by the Defendant and C with each other, the Defendant’s act appears to have been committed with the intent of attacking with C rather than with the intent of defending the victim’s unjust attack. Thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as self-defense or legitimate act. The above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is rejected.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act