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

On July 18, 2016, at around 20:30, the Defendant, at the residence of the Defendant, brought a dispute with the victim D (Woo, 39 years of age) who is denied by the Defendant, and was in a divorce issue with the Defendant, at around 10:0, 1503, at around 20:30, and the Defendant, on the floor of his hand, brought a bodily injury to the victim, such as a one-time pathic scam, requiring approximately two weeks medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements made by the police preparation of D, written statements of D preparation, evidence of the scene of violence, and evidence and photographs of damage;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the 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 asserted that the defendant's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act at the time of the instant case constituted a legitimate defense to defend the victim's assault.

It is common that it is difficult to view that the act of attack and defense has been committed throughout the past and the act of attack and defense has been committed between the two parties, and that the act of attack and defense has the nature of both areas, which are the act of attack, and that it constitutes a "political act" or a "political defense" for the purpose of attacking only one party's act.

However, in a case where one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom even if the act is deemed a new affirmative attack, it is reasonable to view it as a reasonable and acceptable in light of social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010).