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

On July 22, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 03:55 on July 22, 2013, at D entertainment tavern operated by the Defendant, the victim E (the age of 51) who was a guest paid the drinking value in advance to the victim, but the victim E (the age of 51) was not a baby, but used the victim as a refund for the drinking value with the victim who was not a baby, and assaulted the victim's chest part once.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the respective legal statements of witness E and F to the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order: the defendant took money on the floor due to the victim's behavior and refund of the drinking value; the defendant's money 20,000 won fell together with the defendant's 20,000 won, and the defendant only prevented the victim who had contributed to the above money at the same time as the defendant in the process. The defendant asserts to the purport that these acts constitute self-defense or legitimate act under the Criminal Act.

However, the victim stated consistently in the investigative agency and this court that the defendant was unsatisfying due to the refund of the drinking value and that the defendant was unsatisfying his chest. The police officer F also stated that the defendant was unsatisfying with the victim's chest because the defendant did not merely refrain from the victim in the process, but did not merely dispute the drinking value problem, and that the victim was satched with the victim's chest because the above F was in a neutral and objective position in relation to the defendant and the victim. In particular, the above F is judged to be credibility in the statement because it is judged that the defendant and the defense counsel were in a neutral and objective position. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion is not accepted on different premise

The reason for sentencing is the crime.