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

At around 09:00 on September 17, 2014, the Defendant committed assault to the victim, by inserting the door of the management office of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul, on the ground that the Defendant, who was the representative of occupants, tried to continue to perform a work even after the Defendant was dismissed, the Defendant was unable to enter the Defendant without opening the door of the management office of the victim, and by inserting the hand in an open window above the door and inserting it up on the inside, and by assaulting the victim, such as the victim’s hand, hicking the finger, hicking the finger, hicking the finger, and hicking the arms, etc., on the number of days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act because the defendant's act committed an assault against the defendant's hand who tried to open the door of the C Management Office by inserting his hand on open windows, etc. The defendant did not suffer from the victim's assault and did not cause any pain due to the victim's assault. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes legitimate self-defense.

2. According to the judgment witness D’s legal statement and the prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of D by the prosecutor’s office, the defendant assaulted the victim as stated in the facts constituting an offence in the process of coercioning the door of C management office with open windows by the defendant, and at the same time, the victim committed an assault against the defendant with the wheels of the defendant’s hand and hacks, etc. with the intent of attack preventing the defendant from entering the C management office. Thus, the above act of the defendant constitutes an attack at the same time as an attack.

Therefore, the defendant's act is unfair for his legal interest.