On August 25, 2016, around 05:00, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the part of the victim E (34 years) and the face of the victim who was under the influence of alcohol due to an unforeseen reason. When the Defendant met the face of the victim due to drinking, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the part of the victim, requiring approximately six weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F, E, and G;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. G statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The Defendant’s choice of imprisonment with prison labor [the Defendant is the victim’s act in the process of defending the victim’s first price in advance, so the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense. However, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, the victim and the person surrounding the Defendant’s fighting, at the first price of the damaged person and the victim used violence corresponding to the victim.

The defendant has consistently exercised violence since the investigative agency since the victim's and the victim's child-friendliness to this court.

The defendant's act does not constitute a legitimate defense in full view of the following: (a) the defendant's act does not constitute a legitimate defense, taking into account the following: (b) the defendant's act was stated; (c) the victim suffered serious injury on face

In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed with the reason of sentencing that the victim did not take any measures for recovery of damage even though the victim suffered serious injury that needs to be treated for six weeks, and that the victim committed the crime of this case even though the previous record of punishment for the same kind of crime had been several times, the punishment for the crime of this case is considerably unlimited. However, the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed with the defendant under the influence of alcohol and the victim, which led to a contingency.