If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

The defendant is the owner of CPC room in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the victim D worked in the above PC room and was an employee before retired, who was not adequate in appraisal due to wages and retirement allowances.

On July 11, 2015, at around 04:05, the Defendant reported the victims who play games in the above PC room and divided conversations before the PC entrance, and caused injuries to the victim, such as salt ties and tensions that require approximately two-day medical treatment by being pushed off the body of the victim several times in the dispute with the victim due to the problem of wages and retirement allowances.

Summary of Evidence

1. Recording of witness D's statements in the second public trial records;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Recording records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to CCTV images extraction photographs;

1. Article 262 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 262 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for the crime, and the selection of fines;

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

1. At the time of judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not constitute a crime because he did not go against D’s demand to leave.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the defendant was not only recognized as having been out of the PC entrance for the citizen's body, but also refused to comply with the request for withdrawal.

use of violence cannot be justified.

In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the above evidence, that is, D was a guest of the above PC room at the time, that there was time expenditure between the two while the defendant was communicating D with D to the entrance of the PC room, and that at the time the defendant was able to attract D to the police.

In light of the fact that D also responded to the police, there is a demand for the withdrawal of the defendant.