The Defendant is a believers belonging to the Emergency Countermeasure Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Non-Subrogation") within the B church, and the victim C (50 years of age) belongs to a group (hereinafter referred to as the "bridge") who immediately opens a church within the B church.

At around 10:30 on January 5, 2014, the Defendant prevented the Defendant from entering a church as a way of the distribution of the church by 'Bridge' in the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Da.

In order to attack the victim, assaulted the victim's arms.

Summary of Evidence

1. The result of the video CD reproduction viewing (in the situation where both sides of the Bridges are able to see each other, the Defendant initially left a different situation with others, but the Defendant went to the victim according to the direction of a male on the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant also confirmed the fact that a female on the left side of the Defendant gets off the victim and gets off the victim in the process that a female on the name of the Defendant left side gets out of the victim, and it is sufficient to recognize it as a crime of assault). The application of the law is applicable to the crime of assault)

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,00 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion is alleged to the effect that his act constitutes self-defense or an emergency evacuation, in light of all the circumstances such as the motive, circumstance, means and method of the instant crime, specific circumstances at the time, degree of damage, etc. acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, and the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as a self-defense or an emergency evacuation. Thus, the above assertion is rejected on the ground that the Defendant’s act does not constitute self-defense or an emergency evacuation.