1. The sentence against the accused shall be one million won;

2. The defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A around May 31, 2015, around 13:05, at the same time, at the “D stone repair work site” in front of the Dong-dong, the victim E was obstructed by sand transport for the above construction work, and thus, the victim's automobile was changed to move. However, as the victim refused this, the victim was brued by inserting a dangerous object, which was at the time sand, and assaulted the victim E's chest by hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of the witness F;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Each E statement;

1. G certification;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Determination as to the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion on the request for the data of 112 reported case, the detailed statement of the processing of reported case (attached to the processing slip) and the statement of response

1. The defendant has no record of assaulting as stated in the facts charged;

In the process of the Defendant’s use of the date and time and place indicated in the facts charged, there was a fact that the victimized person pusheds the Defendant with the chest part of the victim to prevent the Defendant from spreading his hair by smugglinging the head. However, this cannot be seen as exercising physical force to the extent that it falls under “Assault” under the Criminal Act, and even though the Defendant inserted the victim at the time, it is difficult to view that the victimized person carried the dangerous object as being used for committing a crime, since it was not provided for committing a crime.

Even if the defendant's act constitutes a special assault, it is exercised to defend the illegal attack of the victim, which constitutes a legitimate defense.

2. The victim’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case is consistent from the initial stage in which the police reported the instant case to the investigation agency and this court, and is specific to the extent that no one experienced the situation at the time and it is difficult to understand, and there is no circumstance contrary to the empirical rule or contradictory to other evidence.