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

1. On February 3, 2017, at around 10:55, the Defendant damaged the victim’s property in order to cover approximately KRW 567,058,00 for the following reasons: (a) the victim D’s EM7 passenger cars passed in the Defendant’s future while standing a crosswalk in front of Mapo-si, Changwon-si, Mapo-si, Changwon-si; and (b) the victim D’s EM7 passenger cars passed in the Defendant.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, at the time, and place specified in paragraph 1-a, assaulted the victim on several occasions by taking away bats from the victim D (40) for the foregoing reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A report on internal investigation (applicable to a written estimate of vehicle repair costs) and a written estimate to be attached;

1. Application of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for the crime;

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. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [The defendant and his defense counsel did not destroy the door of the victim's vehicle by launching it, and the victim's balp bage is legitimate defense. However, according to the evidence above, the defendant's damage to the victim's property and assaulted the victim as stated in the crime is acknowledged.

In a case where it is reasonable to view that an act by a perpetrator was committed by one another with the intent of an attack, rather than with a view to defending the victim's unfair attack, and that the act was committed by one person against one another, that act is an act of attack at the same time as an act of attack, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Mar. 28, 200). Thus, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense)