When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

At around 17:00 on December 11, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was in a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant’s house located in Seopopo City C on October 19, 2013; (b) was in a de facto marital relationship with the victim D (54 years of age) who was living alone, entered his house with E, F, etc. without the Defendant’s permission; (c) was in a dispute with the victim on the ground that he was living in his house with E, F, etc.; (d) the victim was able to have the Defendant’s face knife with his hand; and (d) the victim flicked with flat with flat; and (e) the victim flatd with flat with flat; and (e) the victim was flatd with flatd with flat with her hand, and caused the victim’s injury by the flating of the 4-month

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a medical certificate (Evidence Nos. 7) and a report on an investigation (report on hearing statements by persons falling under the shote);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting a crime and the choice of punishment: Articles 262, 260 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. A provisional payment order: The defense counsel on the assertion of the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act argues that although the defendant was in an imminent threat of the victim, it constitutes self-defense as an act to defend himself/herself from the victim's assault. However, considering the specific behavior of the defendant at the time of the case acknowledged by the evidence, it is difficult to view that the defendant and the victim were in an attacked unilaterally by the victim since they were in an attacked by the victim, and even if the defendant got out of a breath, it can be evaluated as a new affirmative attack rather than breaking the victim's hand, etc., and thus, it cannot be viewed as a defense act that is reasonable in light of social norms.

The above argument cannot be accepted.

The reasons for sentencing are as follows.