If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant is a neighbor who resides in the upper house for a long time.

On March 1, 2014, at around 19:10, the Defendant: (a) visited the victim C’s tropib, which visited the floor noise from the Defendant’s house, the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment 202 Dong 1201, which is the Defendant’s house; (b) and (c) caused the victim to inflict an injury, such as a dumping of the number of units, which requires five weeks of medical treatment by taking the Defendant’s hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. C’s statement;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of photograph (record No. 46 of investigation record);

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the defendant and his defense counsel. The defendant asserted that the defendant only took the victim's hand to remove the victim's hand by assaulting the defendant's fat, and that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act. However, according to the evidence of the court below, it is recognized that the defendant committed an act identical to the facts charged against the victim in the case where the defendant fatd and fatd with the victim before the defendant's fats of the defendant's house, and it cannot be viewed as a justifiable act that does not violate the self-defense or social rules to defend the victim's unjust infringement of his legal interest. In light of the motive, circumstance and form of fat, and the degree of force that the defendant was faced with the victim's hand, the above argument cannot be accepted.