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

On November 17, 2012, around 21:10 on November 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) d'E' operated by the victim D (n, 37 years of age) located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City; (b) bread the victim under the influence of alcohol, “n't have been bad years; (c) human life so, h'h'; and (d) bread the victim’s h's h'd' to report to the police.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing witness D and F's respective statutory statements;

1. Relevant Article 260 (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’s assertion on the claim of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that the cost of lawsuit was borne by the Defendant and the defense counsel, and the Defendant, rather, asserts that it constitutes self-defense or excessive defense, since the Defendant did not control the victim’s timber.

According to the above evidence, the statement of the police interrogation protocol as to D, and the statement of D, the defendant found several times at the victim's main points and allowed both the victim to be annoyed. On the day of the instant case, the victim, who did not request the defendant to go to the defendant, led the defendant to wear the clothes on the defendant's chest in order to let the defendant go to the defendant, but instead, the defendant was not allowed to go to go into the room and let the victim go into the room.

In light of these circumstances, the above act of the victim is a legitimate act, and the defendant's act is a wrongful act of attack, so the above argument is rejected.