On December 12, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 21:50, at the Jeju-si “D cafeteria,” the victim E (37 years of age) of the next table B, who was a member of his/her family and eating with his/her family, said that the victim E (37 years of age) of the next table B would be flicking and drinking, and that he/she would be unable to drink by drinking it,” and (b) said, the victim and the victim were in a dispute with one another with the victim, and assaulted the victim, such as flicking the flick.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of each police interrogation protocol to Defendant, E, and F

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. The judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime history of this case, the crime degree of violence is minor, the victim first fats fats bats bats bats bats bats bats bats bats bats bats bats bats bats fats bats bats bats bats bats bats bats bats bats

1. The Defendant, who was the first executive of the claimed victim, was pushed the Defendant with the breath in a breath, thereby pushing the Defendant with the breath in a breath, and the Defendant was also engaged in the breath’s breath, and the Defendant was also aware of the illegality by falling under a passive resistance act as a legitimate act.

2. It is common that it is difficult to view the act of attack and defense to constitute “political act” or “self-defense” or “self-defense” by either party’s mere commission of an act of attack and defense at the same time, as the act of attack and defense occurred between persons who conduct a fighting.

However, even if the outer fighting is viewed as one of the fightings, in fact one of the parties unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party is from such attack.