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

At around 03:50 on March 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) viewed the Plaintiff to enter when drinking E and alcoholic beverages, the main place of business, and (b) called the Victim F (year 41) of a party interested in internal affairs, and (c) expressed the Victim’s Victim’s Victim’s Victim’s Victim’s Victim’s Victim’s Victim’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 son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son

As a result, the Defendant, on the part of a neck where the number of days of treatment can not be known, put the victim on a neck.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

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

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 and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that although the defendant has written flabbing of the victim, there is no fact about flabing, and the flabing of flab is against the victim's assault and thus, it does not constitute a crime because the defendant's act or self-defense constitutes a legitimate act

According to each evidence of the judgment of the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed an assault against the victim as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below. Among the persons who conducted the same fighting, an ordinary attack and a defense has been conducted, and a defense has been conducted at the same time and at the same time, the two areas of the attack, which are the act of attack. Thus, even if they appear to be fighting one another, the other party unilaterally committed an attack, and the other party exercised the tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack, barring any special circumstances, such as the other party's act.