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

The defendant is aware of the same kind as the victim C(58 years of age) and within the same kind.

피고인은 2012. 12. 26. 03:00경 서울 마포구 D에 있는 E에서, 피해자 등과 카드게임을 하던 중 피해자가 욕설을 한다는 이유로 시비가 되어 피해자와 몸싸움을 하다가 피해자를 밀어 넘어뜨리고, 발로 수회 찼다.

As a result, the defendant suffered injury, such as cage cage cage cage 10 on the left side, which requires approximately four weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C, F and G;

1. A copy of each prosecutorial statement concerning F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of the workhouse asserts that the defendant and his defense counsel again committed an act of self-defense or legitimate act in the process of putting the victim C who inflicted an injury on the defendant not to escape.

However, in light of the background leading up to a dispute acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the attitude of the defendant's act, and the degree of injury to the victim, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's act committed an injury to the victim with the intent of attack rather than a passive defense as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from an unlawful attack and escape it from the victim's unlawful attack. Thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate act of self-defense