Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 10, 2016, the Defendant was trying to cross the taxi for business use around 19:10, while driving the alley in front of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, with the victim E (24 years) who was frighted in the opposite direction, but the Defendant was unable to narrow the length of the taxi.

The defendant, who was seated in the driver's seat and was in a dispute with the victim, committed an assault against the victim by putting a dubling fat, which is long into a duble of the victim who is on the part of a dub.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes (E);

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is asserting that the illegality of the act of arresting the offender as a justifiable party is excluded inasmuch as it is likely to have been committed after hearing the hump from the young children and having the possibility of a insult. However, in order for the Defendant to be lawful in arresting the offender in the act of committing an act of committing an offense, the need for arrest, i.e., the necessity of arresting the offender in addition to the nature of punishment for the act of punishment, contact with the present time of the offense, and the apparentness of the offense of the offender, requires the risk of escape or destroying evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 199). In light of the circumstance where the Defendant dumpeded the fat, the Defendant’s act was to arrest the victim as the current offender.

It is difficult to see that it satisfies the above requirements.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.