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 July 28, 2015, at around 09:20, the Defendant assaulted the victim by cutting off the clothes of the victim on the ground that the victim C(40) who is an employee of the Hyundai Capital Capital Co., Ltd. was prevented from operating a coo vehicle, in the 102-dong underground parking lot located in the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Office building, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of CD’s film-related 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. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged victim was able to leave the front part of the vehicle to interfere with the progress of the cub vehicle in the operation of D, and the defendant was able to have his clothes cut back from the front part of the vehicle.

Since the defendant's act is the minimum act necessary to prevent the physical danger of the victim, illegality is excluded due to the act that does not go against the social rules.

2. The evidence of the judgment reveals the following facts: (a) in order to obstruct the progress of the cussing vehicle, the victim was pushed the victim by the Defendant behind the cussing vehicle; (b) the victim got out of the floor; (c) the victim got out of the cussing vehicle; and (d) the victim was laid down on the cussing vehicle in the cussing vehicle; and (c) the Defendant, who gets out of the cuss vehicle behind the cuss vehicle, gets out of the victim by cutting down the clothes of the cuss vehicle; and (d) the victim again gets out of the cuss vehicle against the cuss vehicle

According to the above facts, the defendant did not assault the victim in order to prevent the physical danger of the victim, but did not assault the victim with a view to eliminating the interference with the passage of the Ecuas vehicle.

Even though there was an incidental purpose to prevent the risk of the victim's body, it is the degree of assault.