Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On July 21, 2017, around 12:40, the Defendant assaulted the victim C’s body part in drinking, by putting flabing the bat around the front Dong-dong-ro 5, Seoul, and on the side of the instigate elementary school, and assaulting the victim C’s body part in drinking once.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense, since the Defendant and the defense counsel merely pushed the victim to defend against the victim while taking a bath.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, the Defendant was frightened in the front of the vehicle driving by the victim getting on and driving the Ytoba, and the Defendant was able to take a bath to the victim, and the damaged person was pushed the Defendant first, and the Defendant was fright the face of the victim first, and the Defendant was fright the victim’s face, and the victim consistently assaulted the victim from the investigative agency to this court, and stated that “the victim was frightd to fright the victim, and fright the head to fright the victim’s face” and received the hospital treatment on the same day. In light of the fact that the victim was frightened in the course of the frightch.

Even if the defendant's act is an attack as an active attack beyond the limit of passive defense, there is a lack of reasonableness of the means and method of the act, and there is no balance between the protection interest and the infringement interest.

Therefore, since it does not constitute a legitimate defense, the above argument by the defendant and the defense counsel is without merit.