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

The Defendant, as his wife E under subparagraph 103 of the building 103 in Chuncheon City, owned by C, caused E to change the money, caused E to leave the said building, and resided in the said building from March 10, 2016.

Around 10:00 on April 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed assault on the part of the victim F (year 44) who is the dynamics of the Defendant, by deeming the Defendant “to have money and bring off the E arms from the bank” on the front of the above building; and (b) assaulting the victim’s knick floor at one time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the police interrogation protocol to F

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense as to whether the defendant's act constitutes self-defense under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, in full view of the background and form of the instant crime against the victim by the Defendant based on the evidence of each judgment, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act does not merely constitute a simple defensive act to defend the victim’s unfair attack but also has the nature of an attack. Moreover, in addition to the fact that the act of attack and the defense was conducted between the fighting party and the two areas of the attack at the same time, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act constituted a “political act” for the purpose of defending either party’s act as well as the act of attack, inasmuch as the act of attack and the defense was conducted between the fighting party and the two areas of the attack, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act constituted a “political act”

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel's assertion is not accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that it is difficult to regard the degree of the assault of this case as being serious, and the defendant.