If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is an unqualified person.

C is a person of the People's Republic of China who works in the D hotel Shoba.

Around 04:30 on October 20, 2013, the Defendant called C to charge mobile phone in a “D hotel” box located in E in the period of harmony, but the Defendant did not cause any charge but did not cause any damage to it.

The Defendant abused the victim's face once by assaulting the victim's face one time while the victim C was " dead", and suffered an injury due to treatment days such as tearing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Protocol concerning suspect interrogation of C;

1. An investigation report (an investigation conducted against the F counterpart of a certified hotel letter or staff member, or an investigation into a certified male letter or CCTV inside a certified hotel);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing documentary evidence of damage;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the provisional payment order constitutes self-defense or a legitimate act, and the defendant's act was inevitably issued in the course of passive defense to threaten the victim's death first and prevent the defendant by assaulting the defendant. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or a legitimate act.

However, according to the evidence examined above, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act under the Criminal Act in light of all circumstances, such as the background, process, purpose and means of the case at the time, degree of assault, etc.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.