However, the defendant, without responding to it, has come to the front door of the police station until the police officer dispatched pursuant to a report at around 17:10 on the same day arrives, and has come to sit and leave the victim without justifiable reasons.

The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.

2. At the request of the defendant and his defense counsel, the defendant visited D's house by attending a contract for storage of visiting agency, and D has taken the above contract back.

The defendant demanded the return of the contract, and he was in D's office, but D kn't seem to have been fl't.

Accordingly, the defendant reported to the police.

D did not request the defendant to leave before exercising violence (limited to the defendant demanded the return of the contract to D), and only after that, the defendant demanded the withdrawal of the defendant, and the defendant was waiting for the police to arrive at the site as a victim of assault.

In light of the above circumstances, the illegality of the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act is excluded.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court (hereinafter “the evidence of this case”), the following facts are acknowledged.

1) Since the date of the settlement of the unpaid milk payment between D and E, D visited D’s house on August 20, 2018, the Defendant, a director of the agency of E, visited D’s house on August 20, 2018, and visited D’s house with documents, such as a contract related to the milk payment.

3D received the contract that the defendant possessed, and brought into the house, and the defendant.