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

On May 31, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury, etc. by the Daegu District Court, which became final and conclusive on November 10, 2011.

On November 15, 2010, at around 23:30 on November 23:30, 2010, the Defendant heard the residual from the victim E (the age of 46) who was her fright from the victim E (the age of 46) who was her fright, and her face was taken to be her face with beer who was on the tables, and her face was taken to be her face with beer who was on the tables, and led the victim to the snow side of the right side of the treatment period.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by a witness F in the nine-time trial records;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of some police officers against the defendant;

1. A criminal investigation report (or a counter investigation of reported persons);

1. Previous for judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written judgment which is compiled into criminal records, references to criminal records, previous records of disposition, results of confirmation, three copies, and records of judgment;

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

1. The latter part of Article 37 and the former part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the above act constitutes self-defense or a legitimate act, and thus, the illegality should be avoided. However, in full view of the type of the act of the crime of this case, the circumstances surrounding the crime, the situation at the time of the crime, the degree of the victim's situation, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's act constitutes an act of attack beyond a mere defense, and it cannot be viewed as a self-defense or a legitimate act. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.