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

The defendant and the victim B (the age of 36, the age of n.e.) are women and kn.

At around 10:50 on August 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) kept in a conversation with the victim on the issue of the right to house debts in front of the civil petition for Ansan-si District Court 711, Ansan-dong, Ansan-si, the Defendant left the part of the face that requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. A photograph of damage and place of violence;

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

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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 the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is the fact that the defendant has taken one time the victim's her son, but there was no intention to injure the defendant, and the degree of the victim's injury suffered by the defendant's assault is a minor level that can be naturally recovered, and thus does not constitute the crime of injury.

In addition, the defendant's act at one time committed by the victim's her clock is a legitimate act that does not violate social rules because it was done at the level of guiding the her clock.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime can be acknowledged.

Furthermore, in light of the background and the situation before and after the occurrence of the instant case, the degree of the exercise of the Defendant’s tangible force, the victim’s health condition, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had an intention to do so at least, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms, and thus, illegality is excluded.

Therefore, it is true.