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

Around 05:20 on February 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) requested the victim E to pay KRW 500,000 out of the purchase price of a vehicle at the five-story parking lot located in Gwangju-si; and (b) assaulted the victim, such as: (c) the date of the trial cost; and (d) the victim’s bat with a batf, fat, and fating the body fighting; and (c) the victim’

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Application of each police interrogation protocol to the defendant

1. Article 260 of the Criminal Act and Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the above assault by the defendant constitutes self-defense as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

To recognize an act as self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act must be reasonable to defend against the present infringement of his/her or another person’s legal interest. Whether the act of defense is socially reasonable should be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of the legal interest infringed by the act of defense, the method of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3606 delivered on November 13, 2003, etc.). Even according to the Defendant’s assertion, E did not constitute self-defense, and the above assertion is rejected, since the Defendant’s act does not merely constitute a passive act of defense, but also has the nature as an act of attack. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a self-defense.