Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

At around 23:40 on June 14, 2014, the Defendant: (a) dumpeded the victim D(the age of 19) under the influence of alcohol in the bend on the old C Apartment; (b) dumpeded the Defendant, and dumped the Defendant, and dumpeded the Defendant, “hump dump dump dume,” and dumped the victim E, a daily fump of the said D, by bumping it twice, tightly dump, fump the chest, and fump, and fumped the victim by drinking the face and shoulder part of the said D (the age of 19).

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the police interrogation protocol of each police officer in relation to E and D;

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

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. In full view of all the evidence of determination as to the assertion of legitimate acts or self-defense under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s act is aimed at defending the present unfair infringement or is not contrary to social rules.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.