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 June 21, 2020, the Defendant: (a) committed assault against the victim D ( South, 47 years old) who resides on the lower floor and the noise problem between the floor, and (b) the victim’s breast part was fluored by having the victim’s breast part was fluort with his hand around 08:30 on June 21, 2020.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report the occurrence of legal statements by witnesses D;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order asserts that the defendant's act of threatening the victim in his/her hands constitutes a legitimate defense to defend himself/herself under the circumstance that the defendant constantly finds the victim's damage in his/her house and makes an excessive claim for noise between the floor and the defendant's house.

In order for a certain act to be recognized as a legitimate defense, it must be reasonable to protect the current unfair infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest. Whether the act of defense is socially reasonable should be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, the method of infringement, the level of completion of the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest infringed by the act of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3606, Nov. 13, 2003). In light of the developments leading up to the assault recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the type and degree of infringement of the legal interest asserted by the Defendant, etc., the Defendant’s act in this case does not constitute a legitimate defense because it is difficult to deem the method as a defensive act against the victim’s unfair infringement.

We cannot accept the above assertion.