Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who has no certain occupation, and the victim C(52) is a person who works as the director in charge of D general affairs.

On January 30, 2013, when the defendant requested and consented to obtain written consent from the residents in order to cancel the F Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Zone in the Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Dongcheon-gu, 2012, the defendant, who was the president of D around A, requested that he receive written consent from the residents in order to do so, and did not inform the defendant of the result thereof, the defendant abused the victim's interest by failing to report the cancellation of the designation due to some residents of the residents of the area, and assaulted the victim's interest on his hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing witness C and H’s respective statutory statements;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Although the alleged defendant is recognized to catch a breath of the victim’s breath, it constitutes self-defense to protect the victim’s improper and imminent attack by spawning the part of his own breath, who is the weak senior citizen.

2. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of attacked with one another’s intent to attack the victim’s unfair attack rather than to defend the victim’s unfair attack, and that the act of attacked with one another’s intent to attack and went against it, the act of attacked with the nature of the act of attack at the same time, and thus, it cannot be deemed as self-defense or excessive defense

(Supreme Court Decision 200Do228 delivered on March 28, 2000). As to the instant case, the Health Team, the witness H used himself as a flab and flab with the Defendant and the victim, and the flab with the flab.