Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The defendant and the victim C were living in the same Dolet, and the victim of the ordinary dump was carried out with the above dump and did not look at the opposite dump, and the defendant did not set the rooftop entrance.

On December 1, 2014, the victim set a rooftop entrance door to the defendant, and on December 20, 2014, the defendant tried to see "I wish to do so only" to the victim in front of the 701 corridor of the Dong-dong, Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, his dwelling area, and got the victim's hand and neck away and pushed out to the corridor, and committed assault that may cause the victim's hands over the hallway, the left hand gate, head and ploss, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse asserts that the defendant's act is a justifiable act that does not violate social rules by removing or spreading the victim's hand with a door to enter the house beyond the victim's time limit.

However, in light of the circumstances revealed by the evidence of this case, the behavior of the defendant, the degree of damage to the victim, etc., it is difficult to view that the requirements of the defendant's act, such as legitimacy of motive or purpose, reasonableness of means or method, balance between the protected interest and the infringed interest, urgency, and supplement, have been satisfied.

Therefore, the above argument shall not be accepted.