If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

At around 16:30 on July 23, 2019, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s face face by hand during the dispute between the victim D (years 42) and the process of processing the case at the workplace of the C plant located in Mai-si B.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the statement of witness D and E in the second protocol of the trial (the purport that the defendant is milked behind the victim's timber because he/she sealed the victim's face);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the defendant and his/her defense counsel merely prevented the victim from leading the defendant, and did not use violence to the extent that the crime of assault was committed.

In the crime of assault under Article 260 of the Criminal Act, the purpose and intent of the act, circumstances at the time of the act, form and type of the act, existence and degree of pain inflicted on the victim, etc. should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and intent of the act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do6800, Sept. 24, 2009; 2017Do21374, Jun. 15, 2018). According to the evidence duly adopted by this court, it is recognized that the fact that the victim was a victim before the victim was faced with the Defendant (Evidence 22 pages) and the fact that the victim had performed normal activities, such as taking custody even after the instant case.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence, i.e., the defendant committed a secret act as shown in the judgment while in dispute with the victim, as the result of the defendant's exercise of force of force, the head of the victim was suck back behind the victim, and the witness E testified that the victim's head was "humbly repared" in this court (the fourth page of the record).