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

At around 15:00 on June 30, 2014, the Defendant, at the office of “D” located in the third floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building, caused the victim E (n, 48 years of age) to take out the Defendant outside of the office and to salute the Defendant out of the office, and the victim, who reported back to the office, went over to the bottom of the body, thereby requiring treatment for about 14 days for approximately 14 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Police officers and each protocol of examination of suspect regarding E by prosecution;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning the F;

1. Statement of testimony of the F;

1. A complaint filed by E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the medical certificate (E);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order against the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act do not have any violence against the victim, and even if the defendant committed an assault, it argues to the effect that it constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act, since the defendant committed an act of assaulting the defendant, who was an employee, in violation of Article 8 of the Labor Standards Act, with intent to force the defendant to dismiss the defendant, and the victim was merely an act of assaulting the defendant, who was an employee.

However, according to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant is punished for a dispute with the victim, etc. within the office recorded in the facts charged.

In light of the motive, circumstance, form, etc. of the assault, the victim, who led the victim to the outside of the office, and then returned to the outside of the office, was recognized to have been damaged by the victim, and the motive, circumstance, form, etc. of the assault cannot be viewed as a justifiable act that does not violate self-defense or social norms to defend unfair infringement of his/her legal interests. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.