A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around December 12:30, 2016, the Defendant, who operated the coffee specialty of the victim C (n, 54 years old and D) and D, engaged in the same kind of franchising business as its partner who operated the same, and, on December 12:30, 2016, went on the electricity of the above warehouse at the warehouse used as a resting room in the near north-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., the Defendant used the electricity of the above warehouse, and went on the franchis, and went on the franchis, against the assault of the victim, caused the victim to face with the steel poppy in the warehouse, and caused the victim to face about 10 days in need of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect with regard to C;

1. C Submitted photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate (C);

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the 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 of the Provisional Payment Order (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not assault the victim. However, according to the evidence above, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant used the victim to assault and injure the victim as stated in the crime in the judgment of the court. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

In addition, the defendant and his defense counsel argued to the effect that the act constitutes a legitimate defense even if a physical contact had occurred. However, in light of the circumstance and situation of the crime of this case, the method and degree of the crime of this case, and the result thereof, the defendant's act is not merely a passive defense act, but also has the character as an attack act.

Since the above assertion cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense, it is not acceptable to accept it.