When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a point employee of C, and the victim D(the age of 4 years) is a child of E (the age of 39) who has repaired a vehicle in C.

On August 28, 2017, at around 14:00 and around 3:3rd floor C, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s her maret on one hand on the ground that the victim D was not in his/her surroundings.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written statement among E;

1. Application of CCTV image Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. In order to restrain the victim D from doing any dangerous behavior with his/her own parking lot and carbs, the Defendant is placed at her tamp, as described in the facts charged in the instant case.

The illegality of the defendant's act is excluded as an act that does not violate social rules.

2. Determination

A. The "act that does not violate the social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code refers to the act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms and thus, it should be judged individually by examining and reasonably considering the specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method; (c) balance between the interests of protection and infringement; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003).