If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

A prosecutor shall apply for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment with the content that the facts charged as stated in the judgment of the court are the primary facts charged, and the defendant shall apply for the amendment of the indictment with the content that he/she assaults the victim by cutting the victim's chest at the time, place and chest as stated in the facts charged as stated in the judgment of the court, and this court shall grant permission, but it shall not be judged separately

around 00:53 on October 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the street in front of the Seoul Southernbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (b) the victim D (51) driven his vehicle while driving his vehicle, caused the Defendant’s vehicle to block on the road and cut the vehicle; (c) while under the influence of alcohol, the victim “influences the vehicle” to the victim under the influence of alcohol; (d) Mara, Chewing fla, flap; (e) flac, flac, flac, flac, flac; and (e) flad the victim’s chest, flading the victim two times in drinking.

Summary of Evidence

1. The portion of the statement made by the witness D in the third public trial protocol;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, and that the defendant's act is justified as a legitimate act which is reasonable to be acceptable in light of social norms.

In light of the motive, background, form, and degree of the Defendant’s act recognized by the foregoing evidence, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate act that is reasonable in light of social norms.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.