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

At around 19:55 on September 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) expressed that the Victim D (the 61 year old) who was the Lee Dong-gu, Busan, and the Defendant’s house located in the 301st century had the father and drinking, and the father of the Defendant expressed his will to “Crown’s house” as “Crown’s house,” and the victim expressed his father’s desire to “Crown’s house,” and the Defendant, who was on the side, flicked, flicked the victim’s flick and assaulted the victim’s flick, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as a shoulder and the flick’s flick, which requires treatment for about 21 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (as of the second trial date);

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Statement of the first police interrogation protocol against the accused in part;

1. First police suspect interrogation protocol regarding D;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A medical certificate of injury attached to a report on investigation;

1. Application of photographic Acts and subordinate statutes attached to the investigation report;

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. The Defendant asserts that his behavior constitutes self-defense inasmuch as his head was fulpted from the victim to defend him, and thus his behavior constitutes self-defense.

In light of all circumstances, such as the means and degree of harm inflicted on the defendant by the victim, the means and method of the compared act of the defendant, the result of the act, etc., the act of the defendant in this case cannot be viewed as a case where there is considerable reason to defend or prevent such infringement against the defendant. Thus, the defendant's act of the crime in this case cannot be seen as a case where there is considerable reason to defend or prevent