Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

Punishment of the crime

On November 22, 2017, around 02:10 on November 22, 2017, the Defendant: (a) requested the victim D (36 tax) who is an acting engineer before the C Dong branch of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C, to pay an additional substitute fee; and (b) entered the Defendant’s apartment site, and assaulted the two arms of the victim by hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement and witness D's legal statement;

1. Application of statutes on field CCTV image data;

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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant (Defense Counsel) under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bears the costs of lawsuit

1. The defendant's assertion (defense counsel) asserts that the act of the defendant constitutes a passive resistance to prevent the victimized person from infringing on the defendant's residence, and thus, illegality is excluded.

2. Determination

A. Article 20 of the Criminal Act does not punish an act that does not violate social norms as a legitimate act.

sets out.

In order to recognize a legitimate 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 infringed interest, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do39, May 22, 1984). In addition, in a case where a victim was placed at the top of the victim due to passive resistance to prevent one victim from intrusion upon his residence, the act that is reasonable to be acceptable in light of social norms can be avoided in light of the circumstance, purpose, means, defendant’s intent, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2746, Feb. 28, 1995). (b) In this case, comprehensively taking account of the foregoing evidence presented earlier, the defendant, along with the luminous distance, is at the destination using a mobile phone after having the alcohol.