Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100.

Punishment of the crime

around 16:00 on February 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) demanded the victim D (the 49-year-old) who is a lessor and the victim E (the 51-year-old age), who is his wife, to find out the victim D (the 51-year-old age), to leave the site; (b) obstructed the Defendant so that the Defendant does not leave the site; (c) assaulted the victim D by cutting off the victim’s face; and (d) assaulting the victim D by breaking up and pushing the victim’s face; and (e) threatened the victims by putting together the insertion, which is a dangerous object in the past.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, F, and G in each part;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the part of violence;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Assault by the Defendant’s decision”) 40 and 50 of the same Act (the act of intimidation by the Defendant’s decision was made in a short period of time at the same place with the same opportunity and is evaluated as a single act by law. Thus,

On the other hand, the court may punish the crimes charged as concurrent crimes without changing the indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 80Do2236 delivered on December 9, 1980).

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 21(2) of the Criminal Act mitigated by law and Article 55(1)6 of the same Act (excess defense);

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

1. In light of various circumstances, such as the motive and background leading up to the crime acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the means and method of the crime, the defendant's act before and after the crime was committed, the judgment on the defense of the defendant against the legitimate defense of the defendant under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order constitutes an act aimed at defending the current infringement of his/her legal interests, but the above degree exceeded.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, it is true.