Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

C is the owner of D, and the defendant was the person who worked as the above D seafarer.

On October 28, 2017, at around 21:30, the Defendant was at the night window for the management of the victim by gathering broke bricks, which are dangerous objects in C, while making a dispute with C over the aforementioned D boarding problem before the care of the victim F of the victim F. Management of the Republic of Korea, the Defendant was at the night window for the management of the victim.

In this respect, the defendant carried dangerous objects and destroyed the victim's goods to have their usefulness.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 369 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 369 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for the crime, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the order of provisional payment

1. On September 26, 2017, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) while the Defendant was in dispute with the victim C in front of the “I dan,” located in the Republic of Korea H on September 16, 2017, the Defendant: (b) assaulted the Defendant’s breath with her hand, with her bat, her bats, and her bats with her hand; and (c) assaulted the Defendant’s b

2. Between persons who conduct a fighting match to be judged, an act of attack and a defense has been conducted repeatedly, and an act of defense is called a justifiable act for the purpose of defending against an act of either party, both sides of which are the act of attack at the same time;

It is common that it is difficult to regard it as a party's defense.

However, in a case where one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom even if the act is deemed a new affirmative attack, the illegality is dismissed as it is reasonable to allow in light of social norms, unless it is evaluated as a new affirmative attack (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do8470 Decided November 24, 2016).