2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

On August 29, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on August 19, 2017, the Victim C (Woo, 53 years old) around the Unice Library located in the Geum-gu, Busan, Dong-ro 129 (west Dong-dong); (b) “Is the Victim C (Woo, 53 years old); and

Whether the fraud is changed

“Absking the victim’s chest with his hand, tightly pushed the victim’s chest, knife his hair, kid the Defendant, and kid up his bridge, and assault the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police interrogation protocol concerning partial C or D of the suspect interrogation protocol to the defendant who has partially made a statement in the court;

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;

2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with respect to detention in the workhouses

1. The summary of the assertion was that the Defendant did not satisfe the victim’s arm at the time of the instant case, or satisfe the bridge, and the remaining part of the assault was aimed at defending the victim’s attack.

2. Determination

A. The degree of formation of a conviction in a criminal trial must be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection by causing a suspicion with no reasonable ground to acknowledge probative value is not allowed as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The reasonable doubt here refers to a reasonable doubt that is reasonable for the probability of a fact inconsistent with the facts that is not compatible with the facts that are necessary in accordance with logical and empirical rules, rather than including any doubt and faith, and it cannot be said that the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility is included in a rational doubt (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12728, Jan. 27, 201). Meanwhile, an offender’s act is not to attack the victim’s unfair attack, rather than to defend the victim’s unjust attack.