If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

1. On November 23, 2012, around 19:05, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s chest, who was frighting away from the stairs in front of the 2nd residential area of the 19:05 Gunsan City, on the ground that the victim D (nick, 38 years of age) was frequently obstructed, and that the victim D (nick, 38 years of age) who was living in front of the 19:05 Gunsan City’s 2nd residential area, was frighting once to walk the victim’s chest.

2. At around 19:20 minutes of the same day, the Defendant assaulted the victim E (the 41-year-old) who was the husband of D, who was the husband of D, in front of the Defendant’s home at around 19:20 minutes of the same day, committed assault on the right-hand bridge of D himself.

3. The Defendant, at around 19:30 minutes of the same day, taken a 112 patrol box by a police officer who was called out after receiving a report, and assaulted the victim D’s cocon part on the front seat one time to walk.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (suspect A 112 patrols involving actions after getting on the patrol);

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. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the defense counsel did not constitute self-defense or legitimate act even if the defendant committed an assault by walking the victim D's chest, coming away from the stairs one time.

However, according to each evidence of the judgment, including the victim's above statement, the victim D stated that he/she was assaulted by investigation agency to this court, and there is no evidence to suspect the victim's above statement. Thus, according to each evidence of the judgment, including the victim's above statement, the defendant took the door of the defendant's house while the victim took a dispute with himself/herself, and she took the door.