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

On January 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the entrance of the first floor B apartment C, 34 Ra, Dong 34, Dong 34, Dong, Dong 2017, the Defendant, as if he were her at the victim D (66 tax) who did not have a good common space, and was in dispute with Si scam, followed by the victim; (b) on the charge of the indictment, the Defendant stated that the Defendant was written against the victim who was her body going against the victim and her body to go against the victim, stating that “the Defendant was placed from the victim who was placed against the victim, thereby keeping the part of the victim’s body toward the victim’s body.”

As a victim in CCTV images taken at the time faces with the body of the Defendant, the Victim Defendant also recorded the body of the victim in response to this, but it seems that there was no direct physical contact, such as (21:04:44) the Defendant and the victim faced with the ship, etc., and thus, the correction and recognition as above.

In other words, violence was committed.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness D, E, F, G, and H;

1. Each investigation report (to verify CCTVs at the time of the case according to the details of CCTV damage claim) shall be applied to statutes;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant's defense counsel constitutes a legitimate defense.

However, the Defendant first saw that he was the victim, and even if he was the victim, he was the victim of the attack first.

Even if it is reasonable to see that the defendant also set up a defense against it, and in such a case of fighting, the act of fighting at the same time is an act of defense and has the nature of an act of attack, so it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1329, Aug. 24, 1993, etc.). Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected).