If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On December 30, 2011, at around 07:53, the Defendant: (a) prevented the Defendant (the age of 53) who was the victim D (the age of 53) from getting on the front of the parking lot for the Seoul Northern Building in Gwangjubuk-gu; (b) obstructed the Defendant from getting on and departing from the E-ro commercial car; (c) demanded the victim’s face by hand through open seat windows on the ground that “the talk was wrong because the settlement of electric charges was erroneous;” and (d) continuously demanded the conversation, the Defendant operated approximately 10 meters of the said car in the direction of Gwangju-si, while the victim demanded the above conversation was able to have a door to the driver’s seat of the said car, and eventually, caused the Defendant to suffer the injury, such as the dial salt, tension, etc., for about two weeks of treatment

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of D;

1. Legal statement of F;

1. Application of video Acts and subordinate statutes to video CDs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. The reason for the conviction and sentencing of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the detention in the workhouses is that the Defendant cannot recognize the criminal intent of injury. However, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the criminal intent of injury, inasmuch as the Defendant did not stop the vehicle immediately even after the Defendant pushed the victim, and proceed with the No. 1 of the evidence list ex officio of 00 meters, and the result of the victim’s injury occurred, as long as the Defendant’s injury occurred, the Defendant had the criminal intent

In relation to sentencing, it is true that there are some circumstances such as the fact that the defendant was the first offender, and the victim was punished in the course of trying to restrain the departure of the defendant. However, the objective risk of the defendant's behavior that the person proceeds in the vehicle while driving on the other hand does not small. Even after the criminal facts are stated, the defendant was driving the vehicle again while the victim is driving the vehicle in the situation where the victim is driving on the vehicle, and eventually leaving the site.