Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

On April 17, 2014, at around 03:15, the Defendant: (a) 5 Doco-gu, 745, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, 745, in front of the Doco-gu, Sinpo-si, and (b) when walking in the state of being drunk with the victim C and D, the form refers to the victim C, “I do not have a right to a right to a right to a right-to-face”; (b) the victim C’s face may be taken over by drinkingly, and the Defendant used the Daco-gate, salp, salp, salp, and salp, which require two weeks of treatment; and (c) the Defendant used the victim D’s flab, salp, and salp

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of C or D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Medical Certificate (C);

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Each selective fine for punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defense counsel's assertion of defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the provisional payment order asserts that the defendant's smuggling does not constitute a crime because it is self-defense or legitimate act.

In full view of the above evidence, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act was not a passive defense of an improper attack but an attack against the victim. Thus, it cannot be viewed as self-defense.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

Taking into account the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment for more than one time of fine for the reason of sentencing, the fact that the victims suffered from a bad influence that requires medical treatment for more than three weeks due to an attack, and the circumstances leading to the crime, etc.