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

On March 16, 2012, at around 16:50, the Defendant found the victim E (if the Defendant was a resident, 36 years of age) who lives in the same apartment in the front corridor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment 102 Dong 2202 and 2202, and was assaulted against the victim at the price of the victim at one time as the victim's son, who met the victim's children in the elevator.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partial police officers of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on witness E's partial statement;

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

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even if the Defendant’s act constitutes an element of the crime of assault, the Defendant asserts that the illegality is excluded as legitimate self-defense or legitimate act, as it was committed in the process of closing the entrance in order to prevent the victim who intends to enter the Defendant’s house.

However, according to the evidence revealed above, the defendant can be found to have committed a conflict with the victim at the time and place specified in the facts charged in this case, and at the same time and place, with the victim's drinking, the defendant's drinking is recognized. As long as the defendant committed such act with the victim's intent to attack against the victim, the defendant's act cannot be deemed as an act to defend the victim's unjust infringement, and it is difficult to view that the defendant's act within the scope of passive resistance does not constitute self-defense or legitimate act.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.