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

The victim C(71) is in a position, the defendant is a person engaged in agriculture, and the victim and the defendant reside in the same village, but at the meetings of the former Village Development Committee, the victim did not benefit from the State by opposing the establishment of a D transmission tower, so it is not good to appraise each other.

On September 22, 2015, the Defendant: (a) performed trial expenses on the road that does not go to E at the time of smuggling on September 22, 2015, on the road where the Defendant was closed, on the ground that the Defendant was closed against the Defendant, and on the ground that the injured party was pushed down on the part of the Defendant, whether the damaged party “we see. this title is debris and is not bad.”

“In the course of violence against the victim, the victim was fluored once by hand on the part of the victim, and the victim was fluored.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by C by the witness in the third public trial protocol;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the defendant's statement;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

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

1. In order to establish a legitimate defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the assertion of a political party’s defense or legitimate act under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defense act must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, the method of infringement, the completion of the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do2540, Dec. 22, 1992). According to evidence duly adopted by the court, according to the evidence duly adopted by the court, the fact that the defendant suffered a baby of 21 and 22 U.S. child’s escape from the damaged person at the date and time, but in light of the method of the assault in the judgment, the method of the assault in the judgment, and the prevailing circumstances, etc., the defendant’s act within a reasonable extent or within the socially reasonable extent.