On March 2, 2014, at around 11:10, the Defendant: (a) attached both descendants on the part of the victim F (50 years of age) who was the househouse on the part of the E, a househouse on the part of the E (50 years of age) and tried to enter the church beyond the fence, and had the victim go beyond the floor by pushing the body of the victim; (b) followed up the breath of the victim, and (c) committed assault to the victim by breathing the breath of the breath.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. The application of laws and subordinate statutes to CD reproduction results (as the CD’s screen pictures on page 549 of the evidence list were not reproduced, a prosecutor submitted a CD containing the same video file as on June 2, 2015 and made a reproduction of the CD).

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 of the same Act concerning the relevant criminal facts and the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (one-day conversion amount: 100,000 won);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Code (the amount of fine to be suspended of sentence: 500,000 won, and the defendant denies a crime, but the defendant was the first offender who had no previous conviction, and the defendant et al. at the time when the defendant et al. prevented the defendant et al. from entering the church of the same kind, and the crime of this case was committed by entering the wall beyond the wall and thereby the victim was not responsible for the victim) of the Criminal Code. The defendant and his defense counsel argued that the illegality should be avoided since the defendant's act does not go against self-defense or social norms. However, according to the submitted evidence, the defendant's act cannot be deemed as an act that does not go against self-defense