Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 30, 2016, the Defendant, “2017 High 66, the Defendant, on November 30, 2016, 15:10, committed assault against the victim on the ground that the victim F (hereinafter 43 years old) who visited the 'E' store of the D 1st floor located in Daegu Jung-gu, Daegu-gu, was unable to respond to customers, expressed a complaint, and was able to report the price by gathering 4-5 oral 4-5 times in the store display stand, and, as the Defendant was able to report the price by gathering her oral 4-5 times in the store display stand, he she saw the victim’s winter by moving the fright of the victim into his hand, and brought it out of the train.

"2017 High 449" Defendant 1 was driven by the victim I in front of the building near the Daegu-dong-gu, Daegu-gu, 2016 and on December 27, 2016.

J Boarding in a taxi for business purposes.

피고인은 2016. 12. 27. 02:00 경 대구 중구 K에 있는 ‘L 극장’ 앞 도로를 운행하는 피해자에게 특별한 이유 없이 " 얄궂은 새끼, 개 같은 것 들" 이라는 등 욕을 하면서 피해자의 우측 손목을 움켜쥐고 잡아당기는 등 운전 중인 택시기사를 폭행하였다.

Summary of Evidence

"2017 High 66"

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. CCTV photographs 2017 Go-dried 449 ";

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of I;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 5-10(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and selection of fines for the crime;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion of justifiable acts under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (2017 high time 66) argues that the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act as an act committed to prevent the victim F from interfering with his/her business affairs. However, various circumstances recognized by each evidence of the judgment, namely, the Defendant’s time when the victimized person entered the Defendant’s store, is still long from the time when the victimized person entered the Defendant’s store.