Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won, and a fine of 500,000 won, respectively.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B is a person engaged in self-business, and the defendant A is a public official belonging to the Dongjak-gu Office E.

1. Around 16:25 on August 18, 2013, Defendant B sought a claim to attach his own vehicle at the second floor E of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Nowon-gu Office of Dongjak-gu 47-2, to the Gu office.

Therefore, while protesting against the victim A belonging to the above E, it did not participate in the ethicization, and several times the paper was faced with the face of the victim A.

2. Defendant A, who was found to be a civil petitioner at the time and place set forth in the above paragraph (1), was the victim B, who was satisfing his face several times, and committed assault by taking the victim B’s left face side into his hand.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant A]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B;

1. On-site report (Defendant B);

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of the police interrogation protocol to A;

1. The Defendants: Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the applicable criminal facts and the choice of punishment;

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Defendant A and their defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of Defendant A and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that Defendant B constituted self-defense inasmuch as Defendant A and their defense counsel committed an act of assault in the process of probanding the paper of the paper with the Defendant A, and at the same time committed an act of assault in the process of

In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense shall be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, the completion of the act of defense, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007). Welves, however, this Court’s decision.