If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

At around 03:50 on August 28, 2012, the Defendant, at the home of the victim D(Y, 60 years of age) of the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Carryover B02, had died of her son during a long period, died of her son, and her son’s son was her fluenced, opened the son’s house and her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs and explanatory notes;

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the provisional payment order. The defendant's act is a passive resistance against the victim's exercise of tangible power, and the defendant's act is justified as self-defense or legitimate act.

In light of the above evidence, the defendant's act does not constitute self-defense or legitimate act, since it is acknowledged that the defendant committed a harmful act as an attack against the victim. Thus, the defendant's act cannot be deemed as an act to defend the victim's unfair act, and it is difficult to view it within the passive resistance.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is without merit.