Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the security guard of the Gangnam-gu Seoul building C, and the victim D is the head of the guard of the above building.

On August 28, 2017, at around 10:00, the Defendant resisted the reason that the Defendant reported the Defendant’s patrol failure to the Defendant to the head of the management office, etc. on the ground that he reported the Defendant’s patrol failure to the Defendant’s patrol at the first floor of the building on the top of the building, and carried out a fighting match with the victim, such as gathering a file file file that was located at the same time, cutting it onto the victim’s chest, and cutting it into the victim’s chest, and cutting down the victim’s chest, thereby bringing the victim into an open room that requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D;

1. A complaint filed in D;

1. Investigation report (verification of CCTV images at the time of occurrence of the case);

1. Application of CCTV-related 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. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the illegality of the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate social rules or a legitimate defense that does not constitute a legitimate act that does not violate social rules, because the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion against the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are passive defense of the victim's wrongful attack.

However, in full view of all the circumstances such as the motive and circumstance of the assault against the defendant's victim and the situation before and after the assault, it is reasonable to view that the above act by the defendant was done first in the process of the attacking with the victim with the aim of passive defense, rather than to defend the victim's unjust attack. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense or a legitimate act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004, etc.). Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is without merit.