Housing Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jung-gu

[Defendant-Appellee]

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

1. Violence on March 14, 2014

On March 14, 2014, the Defendant assaulted the victim ○○○ (the 13 years of age) in conversation with the ○○○○○ (the 13 years of age) in a middle school located in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, by hand at one time.

2. Violence on May 30, 2014

On May 30, 2014: around 00, the Defendant: (a) around 00, at the A Middle School principal office, knee knee of the said victim; and (b) “I knee knee of female students in the school,” and assaulted the victim by hand when I kne knee knee of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The statement recorded on the second trial by the witness ○○○○ on the second trial; and

1. Investigation report (related to recording of the contents of suspect conversation) (In light of the evidence of the judgment, the fact that the defendant used the victim to assault as stated in the facts charged is recognized, and there is no reasonable ground to suspect the contents of the victim's statement

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Code, Selection of fines

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Judgment on the defense counsel's assertion under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

With respect to the criminal facts of the judgment, the defense counsel asserts that the defendant's act is limited to the extent of raising the victim's decoration and that the illegality is excluded as a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms.

The expression and behavior of a school teacher, such as physical and mental pain to a student, and a breath speech, etc., are allowed only when it is inevitable for the purpose of education. Thus, an act of assault and breathing to a student was achieved from the purpose of correcting a student's wrong speech and behavior, and it was impossible to correct other educational means, and it is deemed an act of a political party only when the method and degree of correction were objectively reasonable to be acceptable under the social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5380, Jun. 10, 2004).

In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s act of guiding the victim when the Defendant deemed that it is necessary to report and guide the victim’s act; (b) the Defendant gave caution and caution to correct the victim’s act; and (c) the Defendant should have been punished in consideration of methods and physical aspects appropriate for the instruction; (d) the Defendant committed assault against the victim’s face and head without undergoing any particular instruction; and (e) the Defendant committed assault against the victim separately even after the victim’s class begins, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that does not violate social rules as an inevitable instruction act.

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