However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On April 22, 2014, at around 11:15, the Defendant, on the side of the Defendant’s house located in the Jeonbuk-gun C, and on the land managed by the Victim D (the age of 63) and the victim, there was a dispute over the trees of the Defendant. On the land managed by the Victim, the Defendant, on the part of the Defendant, who displayed the rash, the dangerous object cited in his hand on the ground that the victim was her bath and made a harmony, and caused the injury of the Defendant, such as the rash and the snex, which are the dangerous object used in his hand on the ground that the victim took a bath, thereby causing approximately three weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Entry of the accused in part of the suspect examination protocol of the prosecution against the accused, and oral statements D;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (the title "KONEX" used as dangerous articles)

1. Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014); Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the following grounds for sentencing)

1. Although the summary of the argument recognizes the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by displaying the instant radar, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense and thus does not constitute a crime.

2. In order to establish self-defense, the act of defense should be recognized as having been socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the kind and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, and the type and degree of the act of defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do2540 delivered on December 22, 1992, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do2540 delivered on December 22, 199).