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 17:40 on December 10, 201, the Defendant observed that the victim E (58 years of age) was removed from the chair of the small theater, and that the above F, who did not have any right, was removed from the passenger seat without the consent of the Defendant, was punished by the management director G, etc. of the above company on the ground that the victim E (58 years of age) was removed from the small theater, and that the above F, who did not have any right, was removed from the passenger seat without the consent of the Defendant.

At this time, the victim, who observed the process of preventing the defendant from construction, committed assault, such as the defect of the victim’s words “to interfere with the work”, and the defendant’s attachment of the victim’s vessel on board.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements made by witnesses E in the fourth trial records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the statement of E to the police interrogation protocol of E;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. Determination as to the defense of the defendant and his/her defense counsel or the assertion of legitimate act under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, at the time of the instant case, when the defendant was forced to commit an attack, such as flapsing, etc. from the victim first, the defendant committed an assault against the victim as stated in the facts charged during his defense, and that, this constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate the victim's self-defense or social rules as to an unfair harmful act.

2. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was satisfy with one another’s intent to attack the victim’s unfair attack rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unjust attack, and that the act was committed against one another’s attack, and as such, it cannot be viewed as self-defense, since the act was at the same time a defensive act

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in the judgment regarding the instant case.