If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

On September 28, 2016, the Defendant, at around 17:35, 104, filed a dispute with the victim C (the remaining, 73 years old, and the Defendant brought an dispute with the victim on the ground that the Defendant suffered damage due to the fire of the victim's house before several years) and then brought about the victim’s face at around two weeks, resulting in damage to the character of the victim, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect C by the police;

1. A damaged photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act, since the defendant's argument about the defendant's argument under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is when the victim first tried to defend himself.

The "act which does not violate social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not violate social norms and thus, it should be judged individually and reasonably under specific circumstances. Thus, to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the interests of protection and infringement; (iv) balance between the interests of infringement; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). According to evidence, the victim was placed in a detailed attitude that it appears at the time of the defendant during the dispute with the defendant; and (iii) the defendant was reinstated as his duty.