The defendant, around 02:20 on April 25, 2013, operated a taxi on the street in front of the Sungnam-dong 2129 Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong around 02:20.

In order to make a right-hand, the victim changed the car in the future.

Accordingly, the victim of play has a warning against the defendant.

The driver shall prepare and take a bath for each other, and he/she has become a vision.

Accordingly, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as “intestines, tensions, etc.,” which require approximately three weeks of medical treatment, by putting the victim’s body and booming the victim beyond the victim.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant and his defense counsel constituted self-defense and thus, the Defendant’s act constituted self-defense and acquitted the Defendant, on the grounds that the Defendant and his defense counsel did not go beyond the victim’s bridge in order to take breath and breath the Defendant’s breath while carrying the city expenses with the same content as indicated in the facts charged.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, ① the victim obstructed the course of the taxi driven by the defendant in order to resist whether the defendant was living in front of the victim’s vehicle; ② the victim, while the defendant and the victim took a look at the defendant’s breath while she took a look at the defendant’s breath, ③ the victim attempted to breath with the defendant’s hand while talking about the victim’s breath, and the victim tried to breath with the defendant’s hand; ④ the victim breathing the victim’s body and breathing the victim’s body and breathing the victim’s breath in order to breathize the victim’s breath; ④ the victim breathing the victim’s body and breathing the victim’s breath, the victim did not live in the shape of the defendant’s breath.