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

On February 20, 2016, around 11:20, the Defendant: (a) attended F-Jon D'E at F-Jon-si D'E located in P-Joncheon-si, the father G of the Defendant, and criticizeed G who takes charge of this Chairperson, “the f2 years old” and obstructed the proceedings of the Victim’s Ha, a friendly victim H (62 years old), who was in charge of this Chairperson; (b) made a assault, such as frightening and pushed down the fright of the Victim, and thereby, frighted the Victim for a 14-day medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the witness H in the second public trial record;

1. Application of the witness I’s legal statement legislation;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 262, 260 (1), and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime (opportune)

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion against the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that the defendant's act in the judgment is justified as an act that does not go against the social norms and is an act that does not go against the social norms, as an act that the defendant's act was committed to restrain his father's insult in the situation where his father hearss the insulting speech from his father

However, in light of the motive and background of the instant crime, the method and process of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. admitted by the evidence adopted earlier, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act, and thus, the above assertion is rejected.