A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 19, 2017, the injured party B entered the Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 07:10, 2011-73 internal circular roads (sex, on the other hand, red lamps). On the other hand, the injured party B, who was in operation before his/her own vehicle, took a warning and fluencing bath on the ground that the accused was brucing in a sunbly.

The victim set up a vehicle on the side where the inside circular road and the inside circular road are combined at the end of the day, and brought a horse fighting with the Defendant while taking a bath, such as the Defendant’s flabing, shaking the shape, and threatening the Defendant’s chest with both drinking, and threatening the Defendant’s chest.

While the Defendant, while taking a bath with the victim, committed assault by the victim, on the ground that the victim continues to take a bath, he/she was pushed down his/her right shoulder by keeping the victim's face in a pushingken with the left-hand shoulder, taking the victim's face into account.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect B of the police;

1. Application of the investigation report (related to the black stuffs submitted by the suspect B), and the laws and regulations on video CDs recording the black stuffs;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s assertion on Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is a legitimate defense, since his act was conducted at the defense level against the victim who spawn and engage in a spawn act, and thus constitutes a legitimate defense.

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case, the defendant's act constitutes an attack against the victim. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act constitutes an attack against the victim.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.