Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 21, 2017, the Defendant assaulted the victim E (V) on the street in front of the D cafeteria located in Busan High-gu, Busan High-ro, demanding revocation of the case in which the victim E (V) filed a complaint against himself/herself, and preventing him/her from carrying clothes on the other side.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Binding files files) and CD 1 CDs;

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. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the defendant's act of this case is dismissed as it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules, since the defendant's act of this case is a justifiable act that does not violate the victim's rules, without cancelling the complaint against the defendant, and only attempts to flee from the victim.

2. The provision that Article 20 of the Criminal Act provides that the act that does not violate social rules does not punish is that the concept of social rules is based on the standard of determining the most fundamental illegality.

Therefore, even if an act appears to constitute a requirement for constituting a crime under the language and text of the provision of the Act, the illegality cannot be punished only when it is extremely deemed to be within the scope of the order of social life created historically as one of the forms of normal living. In order to recognize such a justifiable act, the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected interest and the infringed interest and the protected interest, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003, etc.). In addition, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court.