A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On March 9, 2017, at around 00:30, E hotel 508 located in Gyeyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do, the Defendant: (a) reported that the Victim F (43 tax) who was a workplace volunteer, was under the influence of alcohol and took a bath against the chairperson, etc. of the old-age union, while taking a workplace training meeting and drinking at work, and assaulted the victim by breathing the flaps.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part of the police protocol with regard to F and the application of each police statement statute to G;

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 and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that since the victim took a bath to the chairperson and the vice-chairperson of the company where the victim had extended the victim's age, the defendant took a bath and took a bath to the defendant, and the defendant took a bath at first when the defendant's timber was less than that of the defendant, the defendant's act of taking the victim's can be seen as a legitimate act permitted under

However, in full view of all the circumstances and contents of the occurrence of the instant case as indicated in the above evidence and the record, even if considering the aforementioned motive of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion, the above act by the Defendant is deemed to have satisfied the reasonableness of the means and method or the balance of legal interests, urgency, and supplement.

It is difficult to see that Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). Therefore, the above assertion by Defendant and defense counsel is rejected.