Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 08:00 on December 5, 2013, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s hump bucks around the Cump site located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, on the ground that the victim D (58 years of age) who is the cump captain of the said Cump station was prevented from getting on a fump vehicle, and fuming the victim’s bump bump bump, etc. on the ground that the victim D (58 years of age) was obstructed.

2. The Defendant interfered with business, at the time, and place described in paragraph (1), exercised violence against the victim D, etc., who is the father of the said C Station, and obstructed the victim’s historical management work by force by avoiding disturbance.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of CCTV CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act merely interfere with the management of the subway station of the victim by means of assault against the victim D, and it does not seem that the defendant interfere with the above business by any other means. Thus, the crime of assault and the crime of interference with business shall be deemed to be in a relationship of commercial concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1895 Decided October 11, 2012)

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that D’s act constituted self-defense or legitimate act by unfairly using violence and verbal abuse during the process of preventing the Defendant from getting off the Defendant’s without fault. As such, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s act constituted an unfair attack on the ground that the Defendant exercised somewhat physical force to prevent the Defendant from getting off the person without fault. Rather, the background and progress of the instant case acknowledged by the evidence above.