If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On December 26, 2012, at around 15:30, the Defendant, while making a dispute with the victim E (the age of 53) in front of the D's station in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on December 26, 2012, had the victim walked three times, and continued to walk the victim's face at the office located in the Financial Corporation site in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on the same day at around 16:40 on the same day, the Defendant, as mentioned above, has taken three times of the above victim's walking, had the victim walked three times, and had the victim's face taken three times by drinking, suffered injury, such as a d'freshing, requiring treatment for about 30 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A witness E’s legal statement (a witness E’s statement is partially inconsistent with the investigative agency’s statement on the suitable part and frequency, etc., but it appears difficult to accurately memory the parts, frequency, etc. that meet the process of mutual assault, etc., and such inconsistency seems to be natural, and thus, to the extent that the credibility is not denied);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate (investigative records 7,8 pages);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the provisional payment order. The defendant's act is a resistance act to escape from the victim's continuous exercise of force, and the defendant's act is justified as self-defense or legitimate act.

In light of the above evidence, the defendant's act does not constitute self-defense or legitimate act, since it is acknowledged that the defendant committed a harmful act as an attack against the victim, and the defendant's act cannot be viewed as an act to defend the victim's unfair act, and it is difficult to view it within the passive resistance.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel are above.