Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On November 18, 2016, at around 21:20 on November 18, 2016, the Defendant promoted that the victim E (the age of 37) would be prompt in the toilet, and caused a trouble in the toilet with each other as the victim E (the age of 37) promoted that the Defendant would be prompt in the toilet. On the part of the Defendant’s right by hand, the victim was able to see the part of the Defendant’s body with his hand, knife his head, knife his head, knife his head, knife his head, knife his head, and knife his head, and knife his head, and divided the victim’s head on the part of the Defendant’s body, and knife the victim requires approximately two weeks’s treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of injury diagnosis certificate (E), investigation report (F counterpart investigation);

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion against the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged that the defendant's act constitutes passive defense against the victim's attack and constitutes a legitimate defense or an act that has a reasonable ground to be allowed in light of social norms. However, in light of the situation and circumstances that fighting occurred and the extent of damage inflicted on the defendant and the victim, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act, such as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, exceeds the limit of passive defense resistance against the victim's attack. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.