If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On April 12, 2016, at around 10:50 on April 12, 2016, the Defendant assaulted the victim E (79 tax) by putting the victim’s ebbbbbbbling in Seoul Central-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statements of the defendant in the first trial record, and some legal statements of the defendant on the seventh trial date;

1. Partial statement of the witness C;

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Part of the statement made by the police in relation to C; and

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the standing photographs of victims (12 pages of investigation records);

1. Article 260 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 260 of the Criminal Act chosen to punish a fine;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The main point of the argument is that the defendant flabbbage of victim E is a legitimate defense, since the victim E first flabbbbbling and corresponding to the defendant E.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the above evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged, particularly in light of the above evidence, the defendant's partial statement, the statement in the interrogation protocol against the defendant by the prosecution, and the witness C's partial statement in court.

(1) The defendant has long been receiving money from victims E and C for long time.

The victim E and C have been claimed several times, and the demand for payment has been made by finding the house, and the police has been called for the fighting in the process.

② At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was preparing for the food and drink in the house with the victim E and C by finding the house of the victim himself.

C and the victim E demanded to pay the money.

③ Accordingly, the victim E was frightened by the Defendant, and the Defendant was frightened. However, the Defendant attempted to frighten the Defendant’s demand for repayment without leaving the frighten, and the Defendant also tried to produce the Defendant’s demand for repayment out of the frighten.