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

At around 12:30 on March 30, 2012, the Defendant assaulted the victim on the ground that the victim F, who was the victim of the three-year village, was the victim F, who was the victim of the disease, was flick in the hospital 312 located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-si, Sungnam-si, and was flick in order to see the outside flick, and was flick to drinking the victim's chest.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports and telephone communications;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant’s act constituted legitimate self-defense or legitimate act as a passive resistance, inasmuch as the F merely took the F’s lobet in order to take the Defendant’s hump first and to restrain the Defendant’s f’s bating.

In full view of the type of the act committed in this case, which can be seen by the above evidence, and the situation at the time, etc., the defendant committed the act of committing the crime in excess of a simple defense means, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant committed the act to defend the victim's unfair infringement. Thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act was within the scope of passive resistance, and therefore, it does not constitute self-defense or legitimate act.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.