If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On June 20, 2012, at around 03:00, the Defendant, at “Eju” located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, abused alcohol that was under dispute due to an employee Victim F (at least 25 years of age) and drinking value, to the face of the victim F, and the victim G (at least 29 years of age) who was a customer who was viewed in the next place, committed assault against the victim G face at 5 to 6 times, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G, F, and H;

1. Some of the suspect interrogation records of the defendant by the prosecution (including the substitute part);

1. Each police interrogation protocol of F and H:

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (victim G telephone communications);

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the selection of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. As to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defense counsel asserts that the crime of this case against the victim F constituted legitimate self-defense as an act to defend the defendant from the assault of the victim.

However, in light of the motive and circumstance leading up to fighting, the process of fighting and the degree and result of the injury of the above victim, etc., the crime of this case against the above victim cannot be deemed as self-defense, since it has the nature of the defendant's act of attack against the above victim's attack. Thus, the defense counsel's assertion cannot be accepted.