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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On August 4, 2015, at the entrance of the elevator in the 1st apartment parking lot located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, the Defendant dual parking of the vehicle, on the ground that the Defendant did not go to the victim C even though the vehicle was parked, the Defendant got off the vehicle with the victim due to mutual vision with the victim, and the Defendant was unable to get off the vehicle due to the victim's fault, and the victim's face was 3 to 4 times under stairs, and the victim's face was tightly pushed down one time with the victim's hand, and the victim's face was shicked up to 3 to 4 weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police against D or E;

1. F, D, or E in the police interrogation protocol regarding C

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of investigation reports (verification of the contents of visual CCTV recording) Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the defendant is closely aware of the victim's face, but there is no fact that the victim's face is involved. Even if there is a fact at time, it is a legitimate act as a passive resistance against the victim's attack, or it is justified as a legitimate defense.

2. We examine the judgment, the above evidence, and, in particular, CCTV images in which the assault site of this case was recorded, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case, and it is also difficult to view the defendant's act as a passive resistance as asserted by the defense counsel or as a legitimate defense defense.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.