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

1. On June 11, 2015, at around 16:20, the Defendant damaged one computer monitor equivalent to 410,000 won by putting one computer monitor owned by the said union at his/her hand, which was located on his/her book, on the ground that the said union manager F, in a horse or dispute related to the business of the union between the Defendant and the head of the said union, has broken down within the “E Resource Development Association office” located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (three floors).

2. The Defendant injured the victim by assault, at the same time, at a place as stated in paragraph 1, and for the foregoing reasons, on a hand, caused the victim’s neck part of the Victim F (53) one time, and the chest part (53) one time, and caused the victim to suffer approximately three weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of a defendant in part in the third public trial records;

1. The portion of the statement made by the witness F in the second public trial record;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. CCTV CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (related to submitting a written diagnosis of a victim), investigation report (report attached to a written estimate for damage to the damaged part of property);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 366 of the Criminal Act that selects the punishment (the point of damage to property), Articles 262, 260 (1), 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines;

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is reasonable in light of social norms, and thus, the illegality of the defendant's act is excluded.

In light of the motive, background, form, and degree of the instant crime recognized by the foregoing evidence, the Defendant’s act is reasonable in light of social norms.