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

On September 13, 2012, the Defendant was unable to operate his vehicle due to another person’s vehicle parked on the street in the front of the Heung-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu. D around 22:30.

Therefore, the Defendant, when entering the above D restaurant, was found to have no owner of the victim E, who was seated as a guest while leaving the said D restaurant, caused the victim's inside and left part of the body fighting with pulse, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as flag damage of cryp and strawing, which requires approximately 14-day medical treatment, by flaging the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of a photographs of damaged parts;

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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the crime of this case is merely a passive defensive act, and thus, a legitimate act that does not go against social norms.

In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence at the time of the instant crime and the circumstances of the Defendant’s assault, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s assault was committed in the course of dispute with the victim.

However, in the case of fighting, the harmful act is both a defensive act and an attack (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000) and does not constitute self-defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 200). In light of the following: (a) the defendant’s act of attack at the same time constitutes a defensive act; and (b) the method and degree of the defendant’s act of assault; and (c) the circumstances leading to