Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the accused does not pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be converted into one day.

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 19, 2016, the Defendant intruded upon a structure, entering a female public toilet located in the original city, which is located in the original city, from around 20:00 to around 4, 2016.

2. The Defendant, at around 23:40 on the same day, committed assault and assault to the victim C ( South Korea, 47 years old) (hereinafter referred to as “nicker”) at the victim’s public toilets on the same day.

"In the floor of hand, the victim was assaulted at approximately 10 times in the victim's hair and face."

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The self-examination protocol (C);

1. Occurrence of a suspected accident, such as injury, and arrest report;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel asserts to the effect that the defendant's access to a female toilet is a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules and thus does not violate the social rules in order to ask him/her according to violence committed by the defendant prior to the date on which the facts constituting a crime are stated.

“Acts which do not contravene social norms” as prescribed by Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to acts which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it.

Whether a certain act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms, and that there is no illegality should be determined on an individual basis by considering the objective and reasonable basis under specific circumstances.

In order to recognize such legitimate acts, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests and the benefits of infringement; (d) urgency; and (e) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5077, Dec. 26, 2002, etc.). Even if the Defendant entered a female toilet even if the purpose of entering the toilet was to ask a female toilet, the place where the Defendant entered the toilet was considered as a female toilet is the means or method of the act.