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

Victim C and D are security guards of “F” in Chungcheong City E, and the Defendant is a person who operates H hotel in Chungcheong City G.

At around 17:40 on May 20, 2014, the Defendant, C, and D set a vision with each other as a problem of the boundary of the land in the front of the “F” located in Chungcheong City E.

The Defendant: (a) suffered from an acute stress response that requires medical treatment for 61 days in order to the face of the victims, and (b) suffered from an injury to the victims, such as an acute stress response that requires medical treatment for each of the 61 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C, D, and I;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of C or D;

1. Each police statement of C or D;

1. A report on the occurrence, each photograph, each report on the request for appraisal, and each report on injury;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting internal investigation;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (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 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act argues that the illegality of the instant crime constitutes self-defense, but the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as self-defense in light of the circumstances acknowledged by each of the aforementioned evidence, the content and method of the instant crime, and the circumstances at the time of the crime. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.