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

Defendant

A is a line driver driver, and victim C is a public official working in a shower program D.

On January 10, 2013, the Defendant stopped in accordance with the direction of the victim while driving a bitr vehicle on the front of the new site of the Hansi Hospital located in the Hansi-gu, Hansi-si on January 10, 2013.

The victim notified the victim of the violation of the restriction on operation of the vehicle, and the defendant was waiting for a public official with the control equipment so that he could not comply with the control, and the victim forced the defendant to board the vehicle of the victim who was parked in the police station while "I want to go to the police station".

The Defendant, with left hand, blicked the right side of the victim twice, and blicked the victim's breath in hand and boomed the victim's blick.

As a result, the defendant puts the victim into a diversified scopic scopical scopical scopic and scopic scopic s

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Protocol of inspection by this Court;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate (Evidence No. 43 pages);

1. Relevant Article 257 (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/her defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order against the defendant under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and his/her defense counsel asserted that since the defendant's act of the defendant as stated in the judgment was aimed at opposing his/her act, it constitutes self-defense and thus, cannot be deemed unlawful.

According to the police statement of C, it is clear that the defendant was in violation of restrictions on operation, such as the width and height of bitr as stated in the decision that the defendant was operated.

Therefore, the defendant is a flagrant offender in violation of the Road Act, and Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act is a flagrant offender.