Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the lessee of Dtel 1217, and the victim E (n, 44 years of age) is a person delegated by the lessor of the said officetel and managed the said officetel.

At around 18:00 on June 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed assault against each of the victims by receiving water from the Sejong World Cup on the ground that, within the F real estate brokerage office of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office for real estate brokers, during conversations with the victim on the grounds that the victim did not listen to the Defendant’s horse due to the unpaid management expenses for officetels with the victim, the victim’s franchising of the victim’s inside part; and (b) the victim’s G (V, 55 years old), who is an employee of the above office, franchising of the said G by taking water into account the said G, and franchising it toward the said G.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements of witnesses E in the ten-time protocol of the trial;

1. Statements made by witnesses G in the 11th trial records;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and G;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the selection of fines;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

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

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion of legitimate acts under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the defendant and his/her defense counsel's defense or defense counsel's assertion of legitimate acts, even if the facts charged for domestic affairs are acknowledged, the defendant acted with the victims as stated in the facts charged in order to defend the victims against the unfair situation at the time of the instant case, which constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the victim's self-defense or social norms. The perpetrator's act is not for the purpose of defending the victim's unfair attack, but for the purpose of defending the victim's unfair attack, and it is a defense act at the same time.